FlyASAGuy2005
Topic Author
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:03 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100628/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2876

We all have varying opinions on the matter but for myself and groups I am involved with, this is a BIG win. About time there comes change with these illegal laws IMHO.

Fair use:

Quote:
With its decision Monday in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court forever changed the terms of debate over the right to bear arms. The 5-4 vote extends principles the court laid out in 2008, when it struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. In finding that the Second Amendment extends to state and local laws, the court has unequivocally affirmed an individual right to own handguns for self-defense, and has restricted every city and state in the kinds of gun-control laws they may enact.

and

Quote:
The court essentially said state and local laws banning handguns (which preclude citizens from owning handguns for self-defense in the home) are too strict. The decision flows directly from the court's ruling in the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington, D.C.'s blanket ban on handguns. While that case already addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment by affirming the right of citizens to own handguns, it applied only on a federal level. (D.C. is under federal jurisdiction.) This case — by way of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment — extends the same interpretation of the Second Amendment to state and local levels. Taken together, these rulings say that the Constitution bars various levels of government from banning handgun ownership.
What gets measured gets done.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:54 am

Imagine that - the USSC had to rule that the Bill of Rights actually DOES apply to everyone in the country. The shocking thing is that 4 judges (admittedly liberals) actually voted against it. Had the decision gone the other way, that would have opened the door to local officials overruling other rights, such as the freedom of speech or any other right we now take for granted.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
Jetsgo
Posts: 2696
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:31 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:02 am

I'm kind of surprised it took until now for this topic to be started. I guess I figured someone already did but it got deleted after people couldn't keep it civilized. Anyway, quite the victory today. However, as victorious as this is, it's still shocking that four judges seem to think the Second Amendment can actually be overridden with these unconstitutional gun bans. What else do they think they can override?
Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:19 am

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Thread starter):
this is a BIG win.

Are you sure?

This case effectively puts the final nail in the coffin of "states rights."

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Imagine that - the USSC had to rule that the Bill of Rights actually DOES apply to everyone in the country.

Funny that you say that considering when the Bill of Rights was written, it was very clear to EVERYONE that it did not bind the states. It bound the feds. If you want to be snarky, you should educate yourself on the history first.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Had the decision gone the other way, that would have opened the door to local officials overruling other rights, such as the freedom of speech or any other right we now take for granted.

Depends on the right. The states STILL can deny you a jury trial in a civil trial. Yup, that 7th Amendment doesn't apply outside the federal system.

This opinion decimates the 10th Amendment once and for all.

Congratulations - yall got what yall deserved.

Quoting JetsGo (Reply 2):
Anyway, quite the victory today. However, as victorious as this is, it's still shocking that four judges seem to think the Second Amendment can actually be overridden with these unconstitutional gun bans.

I wonder if I should bother explaining what a circular argument is here.

You've assumed your conclusion before you presented your argument.

It is not the case that the "second amendment was overridden" by Chicago. For the last 309 years, the Second Amendment simply didn't apply to Chicago because Chicago is not the federal government.

It sickens me that Americans know so little about the reach of the Constitution, and therefore are not remotely bothered by this federal encroachment of rights, namely the right for a group of people to decide their own local laws.
 
Go3Team
Posts: 3156
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:19 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:36 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
Funny that you say that considering when the Bill of Rights was written, it was very clear to EVERYONE that it did not bind the states.

By that, states can limit speech, establish the Church of New York, etc?
Yay Pudding!
 
flanker
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:42 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:59 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Imagine that - the USSC had to rule that the Bill of Rights actually DOES apply to everyone in the country.

I am so very excited. Its about damn time!!!!! Long overdue over here.
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4636
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:31 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):

This case effectively puts the final nail in the coffin of "states rights."

No, the 14th Amendment did. Now that we have a majority of the Supreme Court that know how to read, you'll be seeing more and more cases like these, and not just cases pertaining to gun rights.

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
If you want to be snarky, you should educate yourself on the history first.

If you want to be Mr. Know-it-All, you should educate yourself on the Constitution:

Quote:
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.
Quoting D L X (Reply 4):

This opinion decimates the 10th Amendment once and for all.

Which was superseded by the above amendment.

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
It sickens me that Americans know so little about the reach of the Constitution

Doesn't it though?  Edit: On another note, it's really distressing to see that people still think that the Supreme Court makes the rules. The Constitution makes the rules, and it's the SCOTUS's job to make sure that those rules are being followed. One cannot simply ignore a piece of it just because they don't like it. If you don't like it, tell your elected officials to change it. If enough people want it done, it will happen. Otherwise, accept that we live in a country where the voice of a few (or even many, but not the vast majority) cannot change the fundamental rules of society.

[Edited 2010-06-28 23:36:27]
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:38 am

Frankly I think there should be single Federal laws when it comes to gun ownership, not a patchwork of local and State laws.

In my view guns ownership is very much a Federal issue and a basic right imparted on Americans and not one that local jurisdictions should be able to willy nilly modify as if this was a benign issue such as traffic laws.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
OA412
Crew
Posts: 3761
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:56 am

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 7):
If you want to be Mr. Know-it-All, you should educate yourself on the Constitution:

You do realize that DLX is an attorney and probably knows the Constitution better than anyone else in this thread don't you?
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:12 am

Quoting Go3Team (Reply 5):
By that, states can limit speech, establish the Church of New York, etc?

Originally, that was in fact the case. And, some states did have official religions.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 7):
Now that we have a majority of the Supreme Court that know how to read,

And that might be the most arrogant thing I've ever read on this board. Are you really saying that 140 years of Supreme Court Justices were illiterate, because they didn't come to the conclusion that you wanted? That's a whole lot of people that you are apparently smarter than.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 7):
If you want to be Mr. Know-it-All, you should educate yourself on the Constitution:

Quote:
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.
Quoting D L X (Reply 4):

This opinion decimates the 10th Amendment once and for all.

Which was superseded by the above amendment.

Go read the Slaughterhouse cases. Privileges and Immunities hasn't meant anything for over 100 years.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):
Frankly I think there should be single Federal laws when it comes to gun ownership, not a patchwork of local and State laws.

Why? If people in my building decide that we don't want guns allowed in my building, shouldn't we be able to do that? How about my block? How about my neighborhood? How about my town? How about my city? How about my state? Up until yesterday, my building, block, neighborhood, town, city, and state could ban guns if a majority of its voters so chose. And it was that way for 309 years.

That's a sure heluva a long time...It's not like people didn't know. But apparently, SCOTUS (and many other Americans) have forgotten.

What really shocks me about the whole thing is Mr. Original Intent, Justice Scalia, threw original intent right out the window with this ruling.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:06 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
Why? If people in my building decide that we don't want guns allowed in my building, shouldn't we be able to do that? How about my block? How about my neighborhood? How about my town? How about my city? How about my state? Up until yesterday, my building, block, neighborhood, town, city, and state could ban guns if a majority of its voters so chose. And it was that way for 309 years.

Well assuming you believe that the Constitutional framers meant to impart the right to bear arms on its citizens, no I don't feel you should be able to circumvent or infringe this right locally.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:04 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
This opinion decimates the 10th Amendment once and for all.

No it doesn't, the 10th Amendment grants the right to States to make laws that the Constitution does NOT cover.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 9):
You do realize that DLX is an attorney and probably knows the Constitution better than anyone else in this thread don't you?

So? Apparently 4 lawyers couldn't read the Second Amendment.

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
Go read the Slaughterhouse cases. Privileges and Immunities hasn't meant anything for over 100 years.

Not according to Clarence Thomas who wrote an opinion supporting the majority view but with different legal reasoning using Priviledges and Immunities.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
User avatar
OA412
Crew
Posts: 3761
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:48 am

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 12):
So? Apparently 4 lawyers couldn't read the Second Amendment.

So you're suggesting that they're illiterate, or at the very least, incapable of comprehending a document that they are supposed to ensure is being properly implemented?

[Edited 2010-06-29 02:50:43]
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:36 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
This case effectively puts the final nail in the coffin of "states rights."

How?

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
Funny that you say that considering when the Bill of Rights was written, it was very clear to EVERYONE that it did not bind the states. It bound the feds.

Bull. Why have a Constitution and a bill of rights if it did not apply to the states?

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
This opinion decimates the 10th Amendment once and for all.

No it doesn't - it reinforces it. The states can do what they want, but when it comes to rights laid out in the Constitution, the states need to back off.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 7):
Which was superseded by the above amendment.

Again, logically the 10th is reinforced. Only be perverted modern lawyer-logic can they be twisted as you describe.

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
Why? If people in my building decide that we don't want guns allowed in my building, shouldn't we be able to do that? How about my block? How about my neighborhood? How about my town? How about my city? How about my state? Up until yesterday, my building, block, neighborhood, town, city, and state could ban guns if a majority of its voters so chose. And it was that way for 309 years.

What if your town decides that they don't need free speech, and eliminate the ability of political opponents to campaign? You'd have no problem with that?

The whole point of this ruling is that the right to own a weapon is just as much an essential right as the right to free speech and the right to worship.

[quote=OA412,reply=13]Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 12):
So? Apparently 4 lawyers couldn't read the Second Amendment.

So you're suggesting that they're illiterate, or at the very least, incapable of comprehending a document that they are supposed to ensure is being properly implemented?

No - they simply ignored it because it went against their prejudices. Just like other people here they said, "No matter what the Constitution says, I cannot equate the right to bear arms with other rights such as free speech, and am willing to treat them differently".

This ruling exposes for all to see the lack of respect liberals have for the Constitution. It means what it says. The right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed, except in certain cases according to the 5th amendment where rights and liberties can be taken away through a legal process - i.e. felons and people who have been legally judged to be incapable of responsible conduct.

Let's remember why the 14th amendment was written. One of the main reasons was to ensure that southern states, just after the civil war, stopped denying freed slaves the right to own guns, without which they were helpless against vindictive hooligans that would go around attacking and even lynching them. Justice Thomas went into that history in depth in his opinion.

Start reading around page 26. The 14th was especially relevant to the 2nd amendment in ensuring that local/state laws could not override individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:55 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
Funny that you say that considering when the Bill of Rights was written, it was very clear to EVERYONE that it did not bind the states. It bound the feds

And, IIRC, the primary loyalty of people at the time was to their State, not some new fangled Federal government. That's why you have state's rights.

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
What really shocks me about the whole thing is Mr. Original Intent, Justice Scalia, threw original intent right out the window with this ruling.

Scalia, like the other hard conservatives, will go with a decision that keeps up their image and popularity in the Conservative Community.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
This ruling exposes for all to see the lack of respect liberals have for the Constitution.

That's like talking about the lack of respect that Conservatives have for the people of this country, or for those parts of the Constitution, or laws passed within the Constitution, that serve people who don't happen to be conservative.

As for the decision, I think people in Chicago will have a concern about it bringing in "the Old Wild West", except on drugs. It's a decision that supports the gangs as well as the honest people who want to own a gun.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:22 pm

Finally the people of Chicago have the right to legally defend themselves.
Bring back the Concorde
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:25 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
What really shocks me about the whole thing is Mr. Original Intent, Justice Scalia, threw original intent right out the window with this ruling.

Scalia, like the other hard conservatives, will go with a decision that keeps up their image and popularity in the Conservative Community.

So you are saying that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was NOT to guarantee the right to bear arms for all law-abiding citizens?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
As for the decision, I think people in Chicago will have a concern about it bringing in "the Old Wild West", except on drugs. It's a decision that supports the gangs as well as the honest people who want to own a gun.

My understanding is that the gun ban is very popular among the gangbangers and other criminal classes. It was safer to rob people's homes when you know that the owner is unlikely to be armed.

Remember the guy who brought the lawsuit. Mr. McDonald is an older black gentleman (incidentally a hard democrat, from his comments), who grew sick and tired of people breaking into his house and ruining the neighborhood, and the police not doing anything about it. The cops can't be everywhere.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:33 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
As for the decision, I think people in Chicago will have a concern about it bringing in "the Old Wild West", except on drugs. It's a decision that supports the gangs as well as the honest people who want to own a gun.

My understanding is that the gun ban is very popular among the gangbangers and other criminal classes. It was safer to rob people's homes when you know that the owner is unlikely to be armed.

Remember the guy who brought the lawsuit. Mr. McDonald is an older black gentleman (incidentally a hard democrat, from his comments), who grew sick and tired of people breaking into his house and ruining the neighborhood, and the police not doing anything about it. The cops can't be everywhere.

Ken my friend.
The south side of Chicago is worse than the Wild Wild West.
Trust me on that.
I have older relatives on the south side and I am always concerend for their safety. It has got so bad down there that I rather pay for a hotel downtown or stay with friends out in the burbs when visiting relatives in Chicago.
I am glad they can legally own a gun. They already know how to use them as they all grew up in the Deep South back in the 1930s & 40s.
Bring back the Concorde
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:09 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
This case effectively puts the final nail in the coffin of "states rights."

How?

Because this ruling basically states that there is no bar to incorporating the bill of rights against the states. You really should go read abuot this. There's a pretty good article on wikipedia about Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. That knowledge is really prerequisite to having any sort of educated discussion on this topic.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
Funny that you say that considering when the Bill of Rights was written, it was very clear to EVERYONE that it did not bind the states. It bound the feds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

Bull. Why have a Constitution and a bill of rights if it did not apply to the states?

Because the citizens of the country in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was being discussed, considered themselves more aligned with their states than with a national image. People from Virginia that went to France would tell people there they were Virginians. They would not say they were Americans, for instance. National identity took hold after the Civil War.

You have to understand the dimensions of the colonies and the reason they were founded. Pennsylvania was a Quaker colony. Maryland was a Catholic colony. Massachusetts was a Puritan (Congregationalist) colony. People in Maryland were happy with their Catholic rules and were wary of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania having too much power, and possibly making them change to be more like them. THAT is why we have a First Amendment, for instance - to make sure the federal government could not make a law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of. But Maryland could be as Catholic as it wanted to be.

As it pertains to the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court had already stated that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." In other words, the states could flatly ignore the Second Amendment at their leisure. (See US v. Cruikshank)

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
The states can do what they want, but when it comes to rights laid out in the Constitution, the states need to back off.

And as I've tried to tell you, the states were not bound, nor were they intended to be bound, by the Bill of Rights. You need to wrap your brain around that thought. I understand that it may be a novel thought since it's something that is rarely taught outside of law schools, so most people (including our lackluster media) don't know it anymore.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
What if your town decides that they don't need free speech, and eliminate the ability of political opponents to campaign? You'd have no problem with that?

Go read the Incorporation article I posted to see the distinction. Those rights you mention are considered fundamental rights, meaning they've been incorporated to apply against the states by the 14th Amendment.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
This ruling exposes for all to see the lack of respect liberals have for the Constitution.

And Charles, you are continuing to go headlong into this debate while blindfolded with a lack of requisite knowledge of the Bill of Rights. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but it really is important. With the correct background, you would see that it is the conservatives on the court that are having a lack of respect for the Constitution, and are being extremely partisan in their ruling. IN FACT, the 5 in the majority have literally thrown out conservative judicial philosophy to reach this politically conservative result. Is that law? No. Is it logical? No. It's literally like a ref throwing the game because he wanted his favorite team to win.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Let's remember why the 14th amendment was written. One of the main reasons was to ensure that southern states, just after the civil war, stopped denying freed slaves the right to own guns

UTTER BULL. THE reason for the 14th Amendment was to give all persons (including blacks) the same rights and due process. Note the absence of the word "arms" in the amendment. The arms argument is an argument that just suddenly showed up recently.

Also, note what IS in the 14A is section 5. Section 5 allows Congress to enact legislation to do pretty much whatever it wants as a long as it is furthering the goals of the 14A sections 1-4. So, if they wanted to, they could enact (and repeal) a right to bear arms that the States would have been bound by. They never did.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
So you are saying that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was NOT to guarantee the right to bear arms for all law-abiding citizens?

The purpose of the second amendment was to make sure that militia could be drawn in case the British came back, and to prevent a tyrannical government (like the one they had just won independence from) from suppressing the people.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Remember the guy who brought the lawsuit. Mr. McDonald is an older black gentleman (incidentally a hard democrat

Oh, well, in that case, never mind right? It's all hunky dory because a liberal wanted a gun?

Again, that is not law.
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:40 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
Why have a Constitution and a bill of rights if it did not apply to the states?

Because it's the Federal Constitution, hence it applies to the federal government. States have their own constitutions by which to govern themselves.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
So you are saying that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was NOT to guarantee the right to bear arms for all law-abiding citizens?

The original intent was to guarantee that the federal government would not prevent citizens from owning firearms.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19754
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:41 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Imagine that - the USSC had to rule that the Bill of Rights actually DOES apply to everyone in the country. The shocking thing is that 4 judges (admittedly liberals) actually voted against it. Had the decision gone the other way, that would have opened the door to local officials overruling other rights, such as the freedom of speech or any other right we now take for granted.

This? Out of Mr. "States Rights"?

Only when it suits you, huh...?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:43 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):

As it pertains to the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court had already stated that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." In other words, the states could flatly ignore the Second Amendment at their leisure. (See US v. Cruikshank)

Intersting case - and an excellent example of how the law can be perverted. The USSC must have been made up of Klansmen.

This ruling is a slap in the face of US v. Cruikshank, and rightfully so.

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
And as I've tried to tell you, the states were not bound, nor were they intended to be bound, by the Bill of Rights. You need to wrap your brain around that thought.

And you need to understand that the Bill of Rights was not intended to be optional. The 2nd amendment is as sacrosanct as the 1st amendment, and I'm sure you'd raise holy hell if a state decided that mediamatters and other left wing opinion sources would be blocked.

Your argument makes no sense - regardless as to whether previous justices agree with you. You are saying that the Bill of Rights is not binding on states. Maybe by some perversion of logic that can be argued. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written by human beings, not lawyers, and while their language might not have been the most precise in the world, the intentions within it are clear.

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Let's remember why the 14th amendment was written. One of the main reasons was to ensure that southern states, just after the civil war, stopped denying freed slaves the right to own guns

UTTER BULL. THE reason for the 14th Amendment was to give all persons (including blacks) the same rights and due process. Note the absence of the word "arms" in the amendment. The arms argument is an argument that just suddenly showed up recently.
Quote:
The most explicit evidence of Congress’ aim appears in§14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that “the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens . . . without respect to race or color, or previ-ous condition of slavery.” 14 Stat. 176–177 (emphasis added).22 Section 14 thus explicitly guaranteed that “all the citizens,” black and white, would have “the constitutional right to bear arms.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, which was considered at the same time as the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, similarly sought to protect the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms.23 Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act guaranteed the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Ibid. This language was virtually identical to language in §14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, 14 Stat. 176–177 (“the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal”). And as noted, the latter provision went on to explain that one of the “laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal” was “the constitutional right to bear arms.” Ibid. Representative Bingham believed that the Civil Rights Act protected the same rights as enumerated in the Freedmen’s Bureau bill,which of course explicitly mentioned the right to keep and bear arms. 39th Cong. Globe 1292. The unavoidable conclusion is that the Civil Rights Act, like the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, aimed to protect “the constitutional right to bear arms” and not simply to prohibit discrimination. See also Amar, Bill of Rights 264–265 (noting that one of the“core purposes of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and of the Fourteenth Amendment was to redress the grievances” of freedmen who had been stripped of their arms and to“affirm the full and equal right of every citizen to self-defense”).
Congress, however, ultimately deemed these legislative remedies insufficient. Southern resistance, Presidential vetoes, and this Court’s pre-Civil-War precedent persuaded Congress that a constitutional amendment was necessary to provide full protection for the rights of blacks.24 Today, it is generally accepted that the Four-teenth Amendment was understood to provide a constitutional basis for protecting the rights set out in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. See General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S. 375, 389 (1982); see also Amar, Bill of Rights 187; Calabresi, Two Cheers for Professor Balkin’s Originalism, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 663, 669–670 (2009).
In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Sam-uel Pomeroy described three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.” 39th Cong.Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms:
“Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his home-stead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.” Ibid.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19754
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:47 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):

And as I've tried to tell you, the states were not bound, nor were they intended to be bound, by the Bill of Rights. You need to wrap your brain around that thought.

OMG! Role reversal!

This is hilarious! When it's liberals, it's items 1,4,5,etc. that defy states rights. When it's conservatives, it's #2.

Folks, the ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS applies to all the states. And that's why this admittedly left-leaning, anti-gun man is very pro-2nd amendment. Because if we get rid of that one, then what's to stop us from getting rid of the ones I like?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:54 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):
This is hilarious! When it's liberals, it's items 1,4,5,etc. that defy states rights. When it's conservatives, it's #2.

Folks, the ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS applies to all the states. And that's why this admittedly left-leaning, anti-gun man is very pro-2nd amendment. Because if we get rid of that one, then what's to stop us from getting rid of the ones I like?

I don't see the role reversal. We are talking about something expressly mentioned in the Constitution, which even the most ardent of states-rights advocates will say that is within federal jurisdiction. Where we raise states' rights issues with are programs and laws that do not have any mention in the Constitution, such as unemployment benefits or medical insurance.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19754
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:59 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):

I don't see the role reversal. We are talking about something expressly mentioned in the Constitution, which even the most ardent of states-rights advocates will say that is within federal jurisdiction. Where we raise states' rights issues with are programs and laws that do not have any mention in the Constitution, such as unemployment benefits or medical insurance.

Or gay marriage. Oh wait, that pesky equal protection clause is in the Constitution isn't it? But suddenly it's an issue of States rights.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:08 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
Or gay marriage. Oh wait, that pesky equal protection clause is in the Constitution isn't it? But suddenly it's an issue of States rights.

Unless a constitutional amendment is passed, I would say that marriage is a state issue. And I don't see how equal protection applies - everyone has the same rights to marry - If you can't marry your boyfriend neither can I. It's equal.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
futurepilot16
Posts: 1756
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm

I agree with the supreme court ruling. I saw a report on the News earlier this year about a senior citizen in Chicago who could not protect himself against gangs in his community because they struck down on handguns. It's about time someone stepped in on something that sounds very much illegal. These dumb state lawmakers don't realize that banning legal handguns won't take the illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals. I have to wonder what stupidity would push any state lawmakers to push forth a ban like this.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 19):
Because it's the Federal Constitution, hence it applies to the federal government. States have their own constitutions by which to govern themselves.

So what if state laws which are incorporated by people who have a particular beliefs on certain issues, ohhh lets just say handguns. When these lawmakers are so blind they don't realize that they're infringing on the rights of a person given to them by our founding fathers in the constitution, should the federal gov't not step in?

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 19):
The original intent was to guarantee that the federal government would not prevent citizens from owning firearms.

So why is it now that state and local gov't is now restricting citizens from owning guns?

I am 100% against State and local laws that allow for their laws to completely ignore the words of the constitution. As unheralded as it seems, a state that might rule against free speech, is exactly the same as a state ruling against gun rights. I don't think any part of the constitution is more important than the other.
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:58 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):
Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
And as I've tried to tell you, the states were not bound, nor were they intended to be bound, by the Bill of Rights. You need to wrap your brain around that thought.

And you need to understand that the Bill of Rights was not intended to be optional.

Sigh.

You can't be reached on this, so I'm going to stop trying. I've pointed you to the correct information. I can't make you accept it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):
Your argument makes no sense

It's not my argument. It's history.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):
You are saying that the Bill of Rights is not binding on states.

I'm saying that it wasn't at all before the 14A, (see Barron v. Baltimore), and only piecemeal afterwards. This is the first time a right has been incorporated against the states in probably 70+ years.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):
Intersting case - and an excellent example of how the law can be perverted.

Go read Barron v. Baltimore. The law was neutral - none of the amendments applied against the states.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):
In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Sam-uel Pomeroy described three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.” 39th Cong.Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms:

They may have talked about it, but did you happen to bother reading the 14A? Where is it that people had the right to bear arms in the 14A? Looks like they decided not to put it in there, doesn't it? Looks like judicial activism when something was purposefully left out got shoehorned back in by the courts, doesn't it?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):
Folks, the ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS applies to all the states.

False. You and I may (to greater or lesser extents) want that to be the case, but it is not the case. See the Seventh Amendment, which still very clearly does not apply to the states. At all.

Quoting futurepilot16 (Reply 26):
I agree with the supreme court ruling. I saw a report on the News earlier this year about a senior citizen in Chicago who could not protect himself against gangs in his community because they struck down on handguns. It's about time someone stepped in on something that sounds very much illegal.

That argument is not a legal argument, it is a political argument.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:13 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
There's a pretty good article on wikipedia about Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. That knowledge is really prerequisite to having any sort of educated discussion on this topic.

Are you sure this is the best source to quote, considering their reputation for errors?  



I got this from another source and it seems to say that the states MAY NOT be more restrictive than the Federal Gov't. This is from the 14th amendment. Highlighting mine.


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.

[Edited 2010-06-29 12:26:12]
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:37 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 28):
Are you sure this is the best source to quote, considering their reputation for errors?

Considering that it aligns with what is taught in every constitutional law class at every law school, I think it's at least good enough for a primer.

Unless you want to point out the inaccuracies...

Quoting mayor (Reply 28):
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Okay, now I'll tell you the same thing that I told Dreadnought on this thread. Go read the Slaughterhouse Cases to learn all about privileges and immunities. It will tell you that privileges and immunities are still those granted by the federal government, and are still those that can be ignored by the states.
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:51 pm

Congrats for all Americans. This is great news no matter how the Left wants to down play it. It was simply unconstitutional to outright ban guns. The crime in cities who have held strict bans against guns certainly doesn't the reflect banning of legal guns. Amazing how high crime is in cities like Chicago, D.C., San Fransisco. It makes absolutely no sense to take guns away from those who are responsible, law abiding citizens. Incomprehensible how bogus the argument against legal gun ownership is, especially with all the steps it takes to actually legally carry a gun.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:23 pm

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 30):
It was simply unconstitutional to outright ban guns. The crime in cities who have held strict bans against guns certainly doesn't the reflect banning of legal guns.

That doesn't make it unconstitutional. This is not a logical argument.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 30):
It makes absolutely no sense to take guns away from those who are responsible, law abiding citizens.

This also doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 30):
Amazing how high crime is in cities like Chicago, D.C., San Fransisco.

I hope you have some evidence of what the crime rate would be like in the absence of these bans. You do have that evidence, don't you?

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 30):
Incomprehensible how bogus the argument against legal gun ownership is, especially with all the steps it takes to actually legally carry a gun.

Dylan Klebold.
Eric Harris.
Seung-Hui Cho

Legally got their guns.

What is incomprehensible is that you cannot understand how the argument for a ban is at least legitimate. You don't have to agree with me that guns should not be a constitutional right, but you should at least believe my position is legitimate.

But as has been made clear on this board, you and people who think like you want supreme court opinions to align with the result that you want, not with the process of law. Do you know how the opinion got to the result that you like? Don't you think it's important to know that?

But no, that's not what's important. "The law be damned! As long as I get my way in the end."
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:57 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
I hope you have some evidence of what the crime rate would be like in the absence of these bans. You do have that evidence, don't you?

I don't have the figures right in front of me, but I do know that in Chicago and DC, the crime rate went UP. Coincidental, eh?

Quoting D L X (Reply 29):
Quoting mayor (Reply 28):
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Okay, now I'll tell you the same thing that I told Dreadnought on this thread. Go read the Slaughterhouse Cases to learn all about privileges and immunities. It will tell you that privileges and immunities are still those granted by the federal government, and are still those that can be ignored by the states.

Are not citizens of the individual states also citizens of the United States? If so, how can the states ignore privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States? Why bother with a constitution and amendments at all, if the states don't have to observe them?



If what you say is true, it would seem a simple argument for the anti-gun crowd to push for a gun ban, IN EACH STATE, the 2nd Amendment be damned.

[Edited 2010-06-29 13:59:44]
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
futurepilot16
Posts: 1756
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:59 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 27):
That argument is not a legal argument, it is a political argument.

If you want to talk legality, let's talk how legal it is for state lawmakers to take away the rights of U.S. Citizens, these same rights that form the constitution, the very backbone of this country. That my friend is not a political argument.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
Dylan Klebold.
Eric Harris.

Dude stop.    They illegally obtained those weapons through a third party. How can it be possible to obtain shotguns, which they later illegally sawed off, and a 9mm tec-9 pistol, legally, when you're only 18 years old? Seng hui Cho, got his legally, i'll give you that.

Culumbine reference:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/EQUIPMENT_TEXT.htm

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
What is incomprehensible is that you cannot understand how the argument for a ban is at least legitimate. You don't have to agree with me that guns should not be a constitutional right, but you should at least believe my position is legitimate.

So based on the thousands of gang murders and drug shootings with illegal weapons every year, the gov't wants to take the LEGAL guns out of the hands of citizens based on shootings like the one carried out by a deranged sociopath named Seng hui Cho? That's not a legitimate argument.
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:09 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
That doesn't make it unconstitutional. This is not a logical argument.

Forbidding the citizens in places like Chicago and D.C. from being allowed keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):

This also doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Did I say it was? No. I said it made no sense.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
I hope you have some evidence of what the crime rate would be like in the absence of these bans. You do have that evidence, don't you?

Well I'm quite positive those cities have failed at lowering crime. Hmmm, I wonder if banning guns actually has anything to do with overall crime rates. While many criminals likely aren't the most intelligent individuals, they likewise don't have a death wish, therefore, we don't see trends that show high percentage of gun ownership equals higher crime, particularly violent crime. In fact, in cases like Kennesaw, GA where gun ownership is mandatory, crime rates fell.

Quote:
"What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):

Dylan Klebold.
Eric Harris.
Seung-Hui Cho

Legally got their guns.

Ah, but that's not what I said D L X. To be able to legally carry a gun is entirely different than legally transporting or owning a gun. I had to take an 8 hour class, fire 50 rounds and make at least a 90% or better on my accuracy test. Then be fingerprinted and my info was distributed throughout many databases from the FBI to the TBI and so on.

Tell you what, when you can prove that the criminals who possess guns illegally lay down their weapons, and cops can prevent all crimes, I'll gladly give up my guns. Until, I'll keep my guns and remain no more threat or liability to society than you.

On a side note, I wonder if the folks of Chicago can now carry one of these babies...my Saiga .308  
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:12 pm

Quoting futurepilot16 (Reply 33):
Dude stop. They illegally obtained those weapons through a third party. How can it be possible to obtain shotguns, which they later illegally sawed off, and a 9mm tec-9 pistol, legally, when you're only 18 years old? Seng hui Cho, got his legally, i'll give you that.

Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data (FY 2000-2002), only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted. Eighty-five percent of cases prosecuted relate to street criminals in possession of firearms. Ignored are laws intended to punish illegal gun trafficking, firearm theft, corrupt gun dealers, lying on a criminal background check form, obliterating firearm serial numbers, selling guns to minors and possessing a gun in a school zone. http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/

The problem is not a lack of laws and oversight - it's that laws are not enforced, including federal laws. That doesn't look like it's going to change considering how the Obama administration is getting into a hissy-fit when a state decides to enforce federal laws.

How about enforcing the laws, and cracking down on those 1% of gunshops that show a habit of "misplacing" their inventory. And leaving law-abiding gun owners the fu&% alone.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:20 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 32):
Are not citizens of the individual states also citizens of the United States? If so, how can the states ignore privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?

Geebus dude, go read the case. Don't ask me for my opinion when I point you to the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. Sheesh!

Quoting mayor (Reply 32):
I don't have the figures right in front of me,

Pretty convenient!

Quoting mayor (Reply 32):
Why bother with a constitution and amendments at all, if the states don't have to observe them?

I don't know why I have to answer that question 3 times on a thread that only has 30 posts.

See below.

Quoting futurepilot16 (Reply 33):
If you want to talk legality, let's talk how legal it is for state lawmakers to take away the rights of U.S. Citizens

Because for the first 309 years of this amendment, it only applied against the federal government. Go read Barron v. Baltimore. Really, go read it. Don't take my word for it.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 34):
Forbidding the citizens in places like Chicago and D.C. from being allowed keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.

Sigh.

You guys really just don't get it. I know it's hard because schools don't teach this topic correctly anymore. The rights in the Bill of Rights were rights that protected you against the federal government, and NOT the states. Period. Don't take my word for it, educate yourselves. I've pointed you many times on this thread to places that show I'm not making it up. Other posters have agreed with me. But since it doesn't fit the result you want, you simply ignore the facts I've put in front of your face.

If you can't even acknowledge that the evidence exists, why should I bother trying to give it to you?

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 34):
Well I'm quite positive those cities have failed at lowering crime.

Source?

Yeah, you needs one.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 34):
In fact, in cases like Kennesaw, GA where gun ownership is mandatory, crime rates fell.

Question: have you been to Kennesaw?

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 34):
Tell you what, when you can prove that the criminals who possess guns illegally lay down their weapons, and cops can prevent all crimes, I'll gladly give up my guns.

That is not even remotely close to my point. The point is that if a bunch of people in a municipality want to ban something in that municipality, it is generally their right to do so without worrying that some people who think differently in another state will go to Washington and have their ban voided. It's not an argument that the ban is good or bad. Being constitutional does not mean that it is therefore a good policy. It just means it's within the rules. Kind of like how you can lateral on every play in football. The fact that it is within the rules doesn't mean that it is what you should do. But you could if you wanted to - the refs aren't going to stop you. Does that make sense?
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Topic Author
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:47 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):

I usually tread very lightly when it comes to that. As we see today, the federal government is much more strict on these "gun laws" than the states. I would however like to see state preemption across the board. Something I enjoy here in GA and in VA when I'm up there on break.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):

My understanding is that the gun ban is very popular among the gangbangers and other criminal classes. It was safer to rob people's homes when you know that the owner is unlikely to be armed.

     

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 19):

Because it's the Federal Constitution, hence it applies to the federal government. States have their own constitutions by which to govern themselves.

No, no, no. See below.

Quoting mayor (Reply 28):
I got this from another source and it seems to say that the states MAY NOT be more restrictive than the Federal Gov't. This is from the 14th amendment. Highlighting mine.


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.

Thanks for that plug Mayor. This is exactly where I was about to steer at.
What gets measured gets done.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:57 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 36):
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 34):
In fact, in cases like Kennesaw, GA where gun ownership is mandatory, crime rates fell.

Question: have you been to Kennesaw?

According to the New York Times, the law worked, and crime went down (even allowing for the NYT's watering down of the results.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynolds.html

That's awesome - I had never heard of that. As it happens, I am probably going to be transferred to Atlanta in the next 6-8 months, and our company is based in... (drum roll please)... Kennesaw. My wife has been looking at houses in the area, and I just told her, "Forget the other nearby towns, we will live in Kennesaw itself."

Quoting D L X (Reply 36):

You guys really just don't get it. I know it's hard because schools don't teach this topic correctly anymore. The rights in the Bill of Rights were rights that protected you against the federal government, and NOT the states. Period. Don't take my word for it, educate yourselves.

No, YOU don't get it. I've just reread the Constitution, and confirmed that there is NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, that says that the 2nd amendment is only applicable to the Federal Government, and the states are somehow exempt. The language appears absolute - the right shall not be infringed, period. Ironically, I did notice that your argument might apply to the 1st amendment that IS qualified - "Congress shall make no law...", which seems to exempt the states.

I don't give a flying fig what some judge years ago opined in favor of the KKK. I have a firm belief that the whole idea of precedent and judges opinions gaining the force of law is fundamentally flawed, and this proves it. How can you say that the 2nd amendment does not apply to states when the source (the constitution) does not say that? If some judge said otherwise before, he was wrong, plain and simple. Just because I say that I carry an aircraft carrier on my head does not make it true, and just because a judge decides to read something that is not there does not make it true, apart from the head of lawyers.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:08 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38):
No, YOU don't get it. I've just reread the Constitution, and confirmed that there is NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, that says that the 2nd amendment is only applicable to the Federal Government, and the states are somehow exempt.

Have you read ANY of the sources I gave you? Do you need me to mail you a constitutional law textbook?  
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38):
The language appears absolute - the right shall not be infringed, period.

Easy way to understand it. I invite you over for dinner, and you bring your gun. I say "whoa dude, no guns in my house. Please leave it in your car."

Did I just violate your constitutional rights?

How about a church that says "whoa dude, no guns in God's house. Please leave it in your car."

Did the congregation just violate your constitutional rights?

Do you understand the idea of layering rights now? The Federal Constitution says you have a right. But I can abrogate it in the property I control. Up until yesterday, that was true of the states.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:16 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
Have you read ANY of the sources I gave you? Do you need me to mail you a constitutional law textbook?

Like I said, I do not conside legal eggheads to be any sort of authority. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written in plain english so that anyone could understand it - thank God they didn't give it to lawyers to write.

I do not need a lawyer to explain to me what the Constitution says - I can read. And once again, I see nothing there that says or implies that states are exempt. And you cannot quote me anything from the Constitution that says they are.

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
Easy way to understand it. I invite you over for dinner, and you bring your gun. I say "whoa dude, no guns in my house. Please leave it in your car."

Did I just violate your constitutional rights?

Considering that it's your private property, I'd say no. But even if it did, I would respect your rules out of consideration for my host - when invited, you play by the host's rules.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Topic Author
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:44 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Considering that it's your private property, I'd say no. But even if it did, I would respect your rules out of consideration for my host - when invited, you play by the host's rules

   {checkmark]

Totally different issue and I have had people argue this point with me numerous times. Just as today, I carry everywhere but there are some PRIVATE properties that prohibit guns. I respect their rules and leave it in my glove, locked. There is a line that some choose to cross and other responsible gun owners like myself won't because it will only make things harder for US.
What gets measured gets done.
 
futurepilot16
Posts: 1756
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:20 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):

Did I just violate your constitutional rights?

Dude, you're comparing personally feelings about guns, to state and federal laws. If you choose not to have guns in your house, or on your property, that's not against the law because it's your house. This is the problem, State lawmakers like the morons in Illinois incorporate their personal feelings about guns, and made it a law that is completely against the second amendment. That's why the Supreme Court has to step up and let them know that there are bounds of reason to the tenth amendment.

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
Do you understand the idea of layering rights now? The Federal Constitution says you have a right. But I can abrogate it in the property I control. Up until yesterday, that was true of the states.

Look, I don't have a problem with state lawmakers telling me that I can only have a 10 round pistol magazine rather than a 15 round pistol magazine. But to completely ban gun ownership and telling these people in Chicago that they have absolutely no right to own a gun, despite the language in the 2nd amendment, despite the fact that as American Citizens, they're promised this right by the most sacred document in our country's history. I think it's absolutely ludicrous That the state can have more authority over the people than the Constitution and the federal gov't does.

Quoting D L X (Reply 36):
Because for the first 309 years of this amendment, it only applied against the federal government. Go read Barron v. Baltimore. Really, go read it. Don't take my word for it.

So where in the constitution does it say that this document, particularly the 2nd Amendment, only applies to the federal gov't?
If it does not have these exact words, then the constitution applies to everyone. And States know this, but they've just been abusing power since the language doesn't clearly specify what forms of gov't the constitution covers.
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:38 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Imagine that - the USSC had to rule that the Bill of Rights actually DOES apply to everyone in the country.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Had the decision gone the other way, that would have opened the door to local officials overruling other rights, such as the freedom of speech or any other right we now take for granted.

The second line here clearly demonstrates why D L X keeps on saying that you really need to educate yourself on the Constitution and constitutional jurisprudence. Up until yesterday, the Second Amendment had not been incorporated to the States by the due process clause of the Fourteenth. The First Amendment was incorporated by Gitlow v. New York in 1925. That door was closed a long time ago.

Quoting D L X (Reply 3):

This case effectively puts the final nail in the coffin of "states rights."

You have a really good point there. States' Rights really only applies to so-called "liberal" states that decide to have more expansive protections now.

Quoting Go3Team (Reply 4):

By that, states can limit speech, establish the Church of New York, etc?

Until 1925, yes.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 6):

If you want to be Mr. Know-it-All, you should educate yourself on the Constitution:

Mr. Know-it-All, Esq. is better educated on the Constitution than almost anyone in this thread.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Frankly I think there should be single Federal laws when it comes to gun ownership, not a patchwork of local and State laws.

In my view guns ownership is very much a Federal issue and a basic right imparted on Americans and not one that local jurisdictions should be able to willy nilly modify as if this was a benign issue such as traffic laws.

Criminal law is historically the primary domain of the States, with federal criminal law being secondary and ostensibly tied to Commerce Clause issues.

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):

What really shocks me about the whole thing is Mr. Original Intent, Justice Scalia, threw original intent right out the window with this ruling.

"Originalism" is another word for "when we like the idea" and/or "when race/national origin/religion/sexual orientation don't get involved."

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 11):

No it doesn't, the 10th Amendment grants the right to States to make laws that the Constitution does NOT cover.

No it doesn't. Actually, it is really kind of sad how so many people completely misunderstand the 10th Amendment, because it could be a wonderful tool.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 11):

So? Apparently 4 lawyers couldn't read the Second Amendment.

Did you really just say that? I may disagree with about 95% of what Nino Scalia says, but I don't deny that he has a brilliant legal mind, he's just intellectually dishonest and generally a bigot.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 11):

Not according to Clarence Thomas who wrote an opinion supporting the majority view but with different legal reasoning using Priviledges and Immunities.

1) Concurring opinions are not law.

2) Thomas is almost never taken seriously.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
The states can do what they want, but when it comes to rights laid out in the Constitution, the states need to back off.

You just don't get it, do you?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 15):
Finally the people of Chicago have the right to legally defend themselves.

They did before this too. They could have owned long guns, swords, knives, etc.

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
As it pertains to the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court had already stated that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." In other words, the states could flatly ignore the Second Amendment at their leisure. (See US v. Cruikshank)

Or Miller v. Texas . Or Presser v. Illinois

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):


This ruling is a slap in the face of US v. Cruikshank, and rightfully so.

A slap in the face? Come on. At least get the terminology right.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):

Folks, the ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS applies to all the states.

No it isn't. Amendment III hasn't been incorporated (outside the Second Circuit in a very weird case involving striking prison guards), largely because quartering of soldiers isn't something that is an issue anymore. Amendment VII hasn't, as anyone who has been to small claims court will tell you.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):

Unless a constitutional amendment is passed, I would say that marriage is a state issue. And I don't see how equal protection applies - everyone has the same rights to marry - If you can't marry your boyfriend neither can I. It's equal.

That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard on this.

Quoting mayor (Reply 28):

Are you sure this is the best source to quote, considering their reputation for errors?

Many Wikipedia articles are not particularly good, but the one on incorporation does provide a good primer for those who haven't spent months or years studying constitutional law.

Quoting mayor (Reply 32):

I don't have the figures right in front of me, but I do know that in Chicago and DC, the crime rate went UP.

Lets actually see them.

Quoting mayor (Reply 32):

Are not citizens of the individual states also citizens of the United States? If so, how can the states ignore privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?

First, the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment is the Privileges or Immunities clause. Small point, but these are two separate things.

Second, as D L X mentioned, the Slaughter House cases stated that the P or I Clause only applied to State laws dealing with people as citizens of the United States, and not as citizens of the individual state. Indeed, the most visible place where this clause may have application is the Arizona immigration law, because it involves matters of national citizenship. Otherwise, its just not applicable.

Quoting D L X (Reply 36):

Because for the first 309 years of this amendment

As a fellow lawyer, I know math is not our strongest suit. Its actually 219 years, not 309 years.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38):

No, YOU don't get it. I've just reread the Constitution, and confirmed that there is NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, that says that the 2nd amendment is only applicable to the Federal Government

For crying out loud, have you actually READ Barron v. Baltimore yet, as he asked? Until 1925, when the Gitlow Court decided that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could be used to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States, NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, in the Bill of Rights applied to the States.

Here is a link to the text of the opinion:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/32/243/case.html

And here is the Wikipedia for those who don't want to or have a hard time understanding early-mid 19th century legal writing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
OA412
Crew
Posts: 3761
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:39 am

Question for everyone on here who is attacking D L X because his views contradict their own interpretation of the constitution? How many of you actually hold a law degree that required you to study Constitutional law? Having read the constitution doesn't count. How many of you have as deep a knowledge of the law as he (an attorney) does? I'm assuming you all do since you seem to be attacking his points from positions of great authority and scholarship.
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:43 am

Quoting OA412 (Reply 44):

Arm chair lawyers are a bit like arm chair quarterbacks, only with less actual knowledge on the subject and the belief that they have much more than they do.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:48 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 43):
For crying out loud, have you actually READ Barron v. Baltimore yet, as he asked

Irrelevant. I don't care what some judge said - half of them are idiots. I want the law of the land to be 1) The Constitution with amendments as added, and 2) the laws passed by the legislature, in that order. This idea of precedence and that a judges opinions carry legal weight is ridiculous, and highly offensive to me. I know we inherited it, but it should be exterminated.

[Edited 2010-06-29 17:49:41]
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:51 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
But I can abrogate it in the property I control. Up until yesterday, that was true of the states.

But wasn't the Chicago law saying that you could not even keep one in your home? How does the city of Chicago have any control over my personal property that is protected under the Constitution? Did not the State of Illinois have to accept the Constitution as it stood when it applied for Statehood?

If not why does the federal government give California such a hard time when they want to legalize pot? Should that not be a "States right" then also?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 43):
Up until yesterday, the Second Amendment had not been incorporated to the States by the due process clause of the Fourteenth.

Did not a territory, upon application for Statehood, have to agree to abide by the U.S. Constitution in order to become a State? Seems kind of silly to incorporate a State and not expect them to abide by the Constitution and all its amendments.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:04 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
I don't care what some judge said - half of them are idiots

Well, then you are never going to get it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
I want the law of the land to be 1) The Constitution with amendments as added, and 2) the laws passed by the legislature, in that order.

Ever heard of the treaty power? Administrative law (you buddy Scalia and his Chevron Doctrine)? How about the Common Law, on which the basis of all federal law and the laws in 49 of the 50 states lies?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
This idea of precedence and that a judges opinions carry legal weight is ridiculous, and highly offensive to me.

Then move. Even in a Civil Law jurisdiction, which in the United States includes Louisiana and Louisiana alone, the opinions of judges are what actually give laws any teeth.

Quoting dxing (Reply 47):

But wasn't the Chicago law saying that you could not even keep one in your home? How does the city of Chicago have any control over my personal property that is protected under the Constitution?

The same way they have control over whether you can have cocaine in your house, whether you can kill another person in cold blood or whether a rape can occur on private property.

Quoting dxing (Reply 47):

If not why does the federal government give California such a hard time when they want to legalize pot? Should that not be a "States right" then also?

The federal government uses the Commerce Clause to do that.

Quoting dxing (Reply 47):
Did not a territory, upon application for Statehood, have to agree to abide by the U.S. Constitution in order to become a State? Seems kind of silly to incorporate a State and not expect them to abide by the Constitution and all its amendments.

Knowing you personally, I know that you are trying to listen and wrap your head around what we are saying. I can't speak for D L X, but I would venture to guess that he had the same reaction I and so many others did when we were in law school and were absolutely shocked to learn about the idea of incorporation. The reality is that the States were in complete compliance with the Constitution and its amendments when signing up, because very little at all of the Constitution and its amendments actually governed what the States could and could not do. That is really when the 10th Amendment that you love to bring up had teeth, and the rest of it didn't outside limiting the Federal Government. That is why it is the Federal Constitution and why the States have their own constitutions. The Fourteenth Amendment, and more specifically its due process clause, changed everything when it came to the application of the Bill of Rights.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!

Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:11 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Like I said, I do not conside legal eggheads to be any sort of authority.

Because you're smarter then they? Or you just don't listen to people who come to a different conclusion than you? Because really, what I'm hearing from you is a head in the sand way of thinking "I'm right, and I don't care what anyone else has to say to differ." You don't need context, you don't need history. You probably haven't read the opinion either, so you don't really know what it says. Where am I wrong?

Quoting dxing (Reply 47):
How does the city of Chicago have any control over my personal property that is protected under the Constitution?

  
Again... up until yesterday, it wasn't protected by the Constitution.

Quoting dxing (Reply 47):
Did not a territory, upon application for Statehood, have to agree to abide by the U.S. Constitution in order to become a State? Seems kind of silly to incorporate a State and not expect them to abide by the Constitution and all its amendments.

That's because you don't understand that all of the states that entered the union before the bill of rights understood WHEN THEY RATIFIED the bill of rights that these were rights to protect the citizens from the feds, not from the states.

But again, don't listen to my words. Educate yourself. Look around. Don't just put your head in the sand and avoid knowledge about this.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kiwirob and 13 guests