PDA

View Full Version : Chicago's 2nd ammendment rights?



ducknwork
03-01-2010, 03:28 PM
This should be interesting...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1165

BonMallari
03-01-2010, 03:36 PM
any attack on the 2nd amendment,potentially sets up a precedent, and could affect all of us on the RTF, both as hunters, sportsmen, and FT/HT 'ers

YardleyLabs
03-01-2010, 03:43 PM
any attack on the 2nd amendment,potentially sets up a precedent, and could affect all of us on the RTF, both as hunters, sportsmen, and FT/HT 'ers
As noted in the article, any ruling in favor of applying second amendment rights to the states would further weaken the notion of state rights. There has been a general failure to recognize that the DC case was based solely on the fact that DC is a Federal jurisdiction and has no applicability at all to state jurisdictions.

subroc
03-01-2010, 06:00 PM
vote your guns...

dixidawg
03-01-2010, 07:00 PM
As noted in the article, any ruling in favor of applying second amendment rights to the states would further weaken the notion of state rights. There has been a general failure to recognize that the DC case was based solely on the fact that DC is a Federal jurisdiction and has no applicability at all to state jurisdictions.


Would you feel the same way if states were trying to restrict first amendment rights?

road kill
03-01-2010, 07:03 PM
Saw a neat T-shirt at Pheasant Fest this past weekend;

"2nd amendment....the original Homeland Security!!"



rk

Eric Johnson
03-01-2010, 08:59 PM
The Court had had very limited exposure to the issue of the 2nd Amendment since the Constitution was written. For this reason, the case of District of Columbia v. Heller is sort of an introduction for us to see how the Court thinks. Then, the City of Chicago acted contrary to Heller.

I think that the Court now realizes their mistake in Heller was that by not mentioning the rest of the country, people were left with the feeling that Heller applied only to the District. People are people and the Court can't require one political sub-division to honor a right and the others to not do so.

The Court will rule against Chicago in McDonald v. Chicago.

Eric

PS: I've got a website that allows you to listen to the verbal arguments and to hear commentary by a couple of court clerks or former clerks. I'll try to find it and post it.

YardleyLabs
03-01-2010, 09:49 PM
Would you feel the same way if states were trying to restrict first amendment rights?
I actually like both amendments. However, the only reason the first amendment applies to the states is because of the 14th amendment. At the time of its adoption, the bill of rights only restricted activities of the Federal government, not the states. Individual states did restrict speech, become entangled in religion, and even restrict gun ownership in some cases.

With the adoption of the 14th amendment, some of these rights were interpreted to restrict state activity as well as Federal. However, as Eric noted, the second amendment was never litigated on this basis and decided by the court. Each time a decision is made that brings states under the limitations of the constitution, state rights are affected. Thus, prayer in school would never have been an issue had the court not first decided that the first amendment applied to states in the same manner as it applies to the Federal government.

Long ago, the City of New York limited not the ownership of guns, but the availability of gun powder. It was illegal to possess gun powder in any building in the City because it was viewed as a threat to public safety as a fire hazard. If the second amendment applied to the City, such a restriction would presumably be illegal. At the time, no one viewed this as being anything except a matter of local jurisdiction. In the same manner, towns throughout the country made carrying pistols illegal as efforts were made to bring order and stability to what had been the wild west. Once again, this was considered to be a matter of local jurisdiction.

Today, we have become so oriented to the Federal government and the Constitution that we forget that was not always the case. Personally, I prefer states to be subject to the same bill of rights limits as the Federal government. I think that the noton of rights that vary as you cross state lines is a little anachronistic in the modern age of mobility and global communication. But that is a personal view, and is not consistent with our legal traditions.

ducknwork
03-02-2010, 07:17 AM
I guess I just don't understand how a city, state, county etc can take away ANY rights specifically given to citizens by the federal government and more importantly, the constitution.

Eric Johnson
03-02-2010, 11:34 AM
The blog I was talking about is at: http://www.scotusblog.com/

For some reason they are discontinuing the live feed of the oral arguments.

Eric

Leddyman
03-02-2010, 11:42 AM
As noted in the article, any ruling in favor of applying second amendment rights to the states would further weaken the notion of state rights. There has been a general failure to recognize that the DC case was based solely on the fact that DC is a Federal jurisdiction and has no applicability at all to state jurisdictions.

So then by this logic, you've got no problem with the sate of Georgia, say, I don't know, limiting access to abortions. As in, say, to, none at all in the state.

Eric Johnson
03-02-2010, 12:08 PM
Here's the blog entry from a person who attended the oral argument. However, what the Justices say and how they vote are sometimes quite different so a grain of salt is in order.

Eric

**************
Analysis

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.

When the Justices cast their first vote after starting later this week to discuss where to go from here, it appeared that the focus of debate will be how extensive a “right to keep and bear arms” should be spelled out: would it be only some “core right” to have a gun for personal safety, or would it include every variation of that right that could emerge in the future as courts decide specific cases? The liberal wing of the Court appeared to be making a determined effort to hold the expanded Amendment in check, but even the conservatives open to applying the Second Amendment to states, counties and cities seemed ready to concede some — but perhaps fewer — limitations.


The eagerly awaited oral argument in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, et al. (08-1521) found all members of the Court actively involved except the usually silent Justice Clarence Thomas. And, while no one said that the issue of “incorporating” the Second Amendment into the 14th Amendment had already been decided before the argument had even begun, the clear impression was that the Court majority was at least sentimentally in favor of that, with only the dimensions of the expansion to be worked out in this case and in a strong of likely precedents coming as time went on.

An attempt by an attorney for the cities of Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., defending local bans on handguns in those communities, to prevent any application of the constitutional gun right to states, counties and cities looked forlorn and even doomed. The nub of that argument by James A. Feldman of Washington was that, unlike other constitutional rights that the Court has extended to the state and local level, the right to a gun recognized by the Court two years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller pitted the threat that guns pose to human lives against a constitutional right, so the balance should be struck differently. So far as the hearing Tuesday showed, Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the only member of the Court attracted to that approach.

Justice Breyer drew only thinly veiled ridicule from conservatives on the Court when he suggested that there be a constitutional “chart” drawn up to rank the higher and lower priorities that could be protected against state and local infringement — perhaps the highest rank safeguarding the right to have a gun in community self-defense (as with a “militia”) but with a decidedly lower rank for a right to “shoot birds.” While that idea drew no support, the notion that the Second Amendment right restricting state and local gun laws would not be an absolute right had significant appeal, it appeared.

The first argument to collapse as the argument unfolded was the plea by the lawyer for gun rights advocates, Alan Gura of Alexandria, VA, that the Court should “incorporate” the Second Amendment into the 14th Amendment through the “privileges or immunities” clause. In the first comment from the bench after Gura had barely opened, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., noted that the Court had essentially scuttled that argument with its ruling in the SlaughterHouse Cases in 1873.

YardleyLabs
03-02-2010, 12:08 PM
I guess I just don't understand how a city, state, county etc can take away ANY rights specifically given to citizens by the federal government and more importantly, the constitution.
I think it's a matter of legitimate debate and will be interesting to see how the Court decides. As a general rule, the Bill of Rights was only interpreted to restrict Federal actions. While the 14th amendment imposed many Bill of Right protection onto state governments, no second amendment case has been decided on that basis. The impact of the Heller case was to define the second amendment as a personal right for the first time. However, that same case opened the door for regulation of that right short of absolute prohibition of what the Court viewed as common weapons (e.g. rifles and pistols). If the Chicago case determines that the second amendment restricts state activities as well as Federal ones, there will undoubtedly be many more cases to determine what constitutes reasonable regulation. I would love to see some basic standard that would make it so that I didn't have to worry about what might happen if I cross the border from my own, gun friendly state into a less friendly neighboring state. However, I am not holding my breath.

Cody Covey
03-02-2010, 01:47 PM
ugh i agree with Jeff haha. The constitution restricts rights of the federal government and makes no mention of the states. The federal government can't make a law about gun rights but it makes no mention of the state governments doing it. A lot of states have in their state constitutions the same amendment so those states obviously can't make laws but if its not in the constitution of the state the state can do whatever they want as far as gun rights. unfortunately states rights have to go both ways.

ducknwork
03-02-2010, 02:10 PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is a period after 'infringed'. It doesn't say by whom...

Cody Covey
03-02-2010, 02:23 PM
so then the british actually have the right to bear arms because of our federal constitution?

ducknwork
03-02-2010, 02:33 PM
so then the british actually have the right to bear arms because of our federal constitution?

Not what I meant...it doesn't say who can't infringe upon that right...

It doesn't seem to specify that only the feds are restricted from infringing upon our right to bear arms and the states can do as they please. It's not 'shall not be infringed by the federal govt', just 'shall not be infringed.'

That was supposed to be a big period, but it looks kinda stupid...:)

YardleyLabs
03-02-2010, 02:45 PM
There is a period after 'infringed'. It doesn't say by whom...
I'm sure that will be part of the argument used. Actually, I will be surprised if this court fails to rule that the second amendment applies to all levels of government. However, it is not clear what will be done beyond overturning absolute prohibitions on pistols. At this stage, the five justices that concurred in the Heller decision might actually be focused more on having another case that relies on the Heller decision logic, thereby helping to embed that logic more deeply into future law.

Stare Decisis, the principle that defines "settled" law, depends in part on the number of cases that have relied on a particular decision. The more such cases there are, the more "settled" the legal principles are considered to be. The actual logic applied by the majority was pretty reaching and hotly contested. A different set of justices would probably see little reason not to reverse the ruling as it stands if they agreed with the minority.

Leddyman
03-02-2010, 03:00 PM
I guess I just don't understand how a city, state, county etc can take away ANY rights specifically given to citizens by the federal government and more importantly, the constitution.

Neither the constitution nor the federal government gives you rights. The constitution enumerates God given rights. Rights can not be conferred upon a person by the government, only privileges. If you get your rights from the government that means that they may take them from you at their whim.
The hierarchy of laws in this country is Federal, State, Local, in that order. Federal laws supercede state laws.
The whole idea underlying the constitution is that the rights we enjoy are given to man by the creator, and as such are inalienable. This is why the Anti-God crowd in this country is so vocal. If there is no God then rights are conferred by each other and can be taken away. This is at the heart of their strategy.
The right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the right to life. It is a person's only defense in order to maintain life in the face of attack by entities of superior numbers or strength. A citizen has the right to bear arms to defend life and property.
To justify the usurpation of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, one must first get rid of that pesky God.

That is just what the anti-gun crowd intends to do regards,

Uncle Bill
03-02-2010, 05:05 PM
Neither the constitution nor the federal government gives you rights. The constitution enumerates God given rights. Rights can not be conferred upon a person by the government, only privileges. If you get your rights from the government that means that they may take them from you at their whim.
The hierarchy of laws in this country is Federal, State, Local, in that order. Federal laws supercede state laws.
The whole idea underlying the constitution is that the rights we enjoy are given to man by the creator, and as such are inalienable. This is why the Anti-God crowd in this country is so vocal. If there is no God then rights are conferred by each other and can be taken away. This is at the heart of their strategy.
The right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the right to life. It is a person's only defense in order to maintain life in the face of attack by entities of superior numbers or strength. A citizen has the right to bear arms to defend life and property.
To justify the usurpation of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, one must first get rid of that pesky God.

That is just what the anti-gun crowd intends to do regards,


Exactly! Dandy post, Terry.


UB

Tsangster
03-02-2010, 05:26 PM
Neither the constitution nor the federal government gives you rights.

This!!

Added the extra exclamation point so that the message would be of sufficient length.

Cody Covey
03-02-2010, 06:38 PM
Not what I meant...it doesn't say who can't infringe upon that right...

It doesn't seem to specify that only the feds are restricted from infringing upon our right to bear arms and the states can do as they please. It's not 'shall not be infringed by the federal govt', just 'shall not be infringed.'

That was supposed to be a big period, but it looks kinda stupid...:)
It also doesn't say who the people are technically. The federal constitution applies to the federal government, as Jeff stated for the most part, state constitutions have certain things they aren't allowed to infringe upon because of the 14th amendment but other than that the constitution applies to the federal government and what they can't do to people. The states get "free reign" over people. The idea was that if you didn't like what one state was doing you could move to the next. This process has kind of been negated because of the federal government saying either do this or that or we will hold back federal dollars. Seat belt law anyone?