The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Chicago's 2nd ammendment rights?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default Chicago's 2nd ammendment rights?

    This should be interesting...

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

  2. #2
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,097

    Default

    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
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  3. #3
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    vote your guns...
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    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.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Georgetown, MA
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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?

  6. #6
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,211

    Default

    Saw a neat T-shirt at Pheasant Fest this past weekend;

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



    rk
    Stan b & Elvis

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,761

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dixidawg View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,761

    Default

    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
    Last edited by Eric Johnson; 03-02-2010 at 10:37 AM.

Posting Permissions

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