The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Chicago's 2nd ammendment rights?

  1. #11
    Senior Member Leddyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cochran, georgia
    Posts
    2,530

    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.
    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.
    Terry Moseley
    Bad Motor Scooter SH

    He that tooteth not his own horn...The same shall not be tooted.

    There could be 5 or 6 ninjas in this room right now.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,845

    Default

    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.

  3. #13
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ducknwork View Post
    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.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    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.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    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...

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    so then the british actually have the right to bear arms because of our federal constitution?

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eildydar View Post
    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...
    Last edited by ducknwork; 03-02-2010 at 01:36 PM.

  8. #18
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ducknwork View Post
    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.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Leddyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cochran, georgia
    Posts
    2,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ducknwork View Post
    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,
    Last edited by Leddyman; 03-02-2010 at 02:03 PM.
    Terry Moseley
    Bad Motor Scooter SH

    He that tooteth not his own horn...The same shall not be tooted.

    There could be 5 or 6 ninjas in this room right now.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leddyman View Post
    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
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

Posting Permissions

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