US Almost Overturned Gun Rights... but didn't

[Danoff]

Take that Chicago!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html

What I don't understand is how on earth we get a 5-4 ruling on this. We were seriously 1 justice away from allowing state governments to ban guns? What country is this again?

The ruling incorporates the 2nd Amendment to be restrictive of state law to strike down a Chicago ordinance against gun ownership. Almost as concerning as the fact that the ruling was 5-4 is the fact that the 5 majority opinions differed on how to incorporate. 4 claimed via due process, one (Justice Thomas, my favorite) claimed via privileges or immunities. On the face of it, it seems like splitting hairs to me. They seem extremely similar and obvious (I'm looking at you dissenting judges). I haven't gotten to read Justice Thomas's opinion yet on why the PI clause is more appropriate.

 

[Omnis]

If I had a time machine, I'd go tell the founders to make the country's documents into educational materials.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Daley(mayor) has already said that if the ruling didn't go in his favor, he would impose stricter gun laws.

 

[Danoff]

Daley(mayor) has already said that if the ruling didn't go in his favor, he would impose stricter gun laws.

How exactly does that work?

 

[DK]

Well, banning guns isn't gonna work. You can just easily find some guy willing to make a quick buck by selling guns. Just because something's illegal doesn't mean people don't do (in the case of crimes, e.g. street racing)/use (e.g. drugs) it.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

How exactly does that work?

I'm not sure, but here's a brief article on wgntv.com from June 26

Mayor Daley said the city must continue to fight against handguns even if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the ban as unconstitutional.

Mayor Daley said Saturday he's ready to act if that happens.

Daley said legislation would immediately be introduced in city council, but he didn't give specifics.

The changes could include gun insurance, a weapons registry , and restrictions that would make it tougher to buy guns.

Daley said the violence last weekend, 54 people shot, at least 10 of those people dead, shows the need for the city's handgun ban to remain in place.

The mayor also said, taking control of the violence starts with residents taking a stand.

"Guns are not the answer. Like in a home or outside a home, to solve all the issues confronting people. If allow it, if you allow guns to overtake us, they will overtake you," Daley said.

The Chicago City Council held a public hearing Wednesday about gun control.

Daley is one of the nation's most vocal gun control advocates.

 

[Danoff]

Ah, he's going to try to go around it with different types of restrictions. Yea - that's about what I'd expect. Some of those will have to be challenged as well.

 

[wfooshee]

It astonishes me that anyone can even try to reason that The freaking SUPREME LAW of the freaking LAND could possibly not overrule some local ordinance or statute.

If it's in the Constitution, you CANNOT say differently anywhere in the country, for any reason, at any time.

The perfect answer is obviously to disarm the citizenry and make them all sitting ducks for the folks that do have guns.

I understand Chicago has a crime problem. Wow, that's a new concept!

Chicago doesn't have a gun problem. Perhaps addressing the crime problem itself would have some positive affect.

Some will say that that's an ignorant oversimplification. Well, so is thinking gun control equals crime control.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Daley(mayor) has already said that if the ruling didn't go in his favor, he would impose stricter gun laws.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Daley-Vows-New-Gun-Ordinances-97328384.html

As expected, Mayor Daley and Chicago's City Council are circling the wagons to defend against an unfavorable (by who?)decision by the Supreme Court concerning the city's gun ban.

Daley said the city would have in place a new ordinance aimed at making it difficult to purchase and own a gun in Chicago.

"We'll publicly propose a new ordinance very soon," Daley said at an afternoon press conference concerning the gun ban.

"As a city we must continue to stand up ..and fight for a ban on assault weapons .. as well as a crackdown on gun shops," Daley said. "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns."

This guy is an idiot!

"We are a country of laws not a nation of guns."

Yeah, jackass, and the HIGHEST law of our nation just buggered you!

 

[Sam48]

It's quite sad that 4 justices don't respect the 2nd amendment. Our nations constitution means exactly what it says.

 

[McLaren]

I'd love to see them when they actually start going to confront people. There's quite a few "redneck" groups down here that are - I'm serious - ready to die for their guns.

 

[Sam48]

I'd love to see them when they actually start going to confront people. There's quite a few "redneck" groups down here that are - I'm serious - ready to die for their guns.

Reminds me of when the Top Gear boys simply wrote insulting phrases on their cars whilst driving through a "redneck group". No in-forcing, no bad intentions, just good TV, and they almost got shot/beaten to death. I can't imagine what would happen if they were confronted and told they couldn't have guns.

 

[LeftyWright69]

"When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns!"

 

[Dotini]

There is a clause in the Declaration of Independence which states that when a government becomes abusive of the rights of the people, it is the right of the people to amend or abolish it (government). I believe this is the logical basis for the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, as it theoretically gives the people the means (guns) to enforce change in the government. Is there any disagreement or equivocation to this notion?

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Eric.]

There is a clause in the Declaration of Independence which states that when a government becomes abusive of the rights of the people, it is the right of the people to amend or abolish it (government). I believe this is the logical basis for the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, as it theoretically gives the people the means (guns) to enforce change in the government. Is there any disagreement or equivocation to this notion?

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

That's exactly what they had in mind, to prevent any sort of tyranny that the founding fathers had all been used to.

 

[LeftyWright69]

There is a clause in the Declaration of Independence which states that when a government becomes abusive of the rights of the people, it is the right of the people to amend or abolish it (government). I believe this is the logical basis for the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, as it theoretically gives the people the means (guns) to enforce change in the government. Is there any disagreement or equivocation to this notion?

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

Works for me

Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people there is liberty.
When the people fear the government there is tyranny.”

 

[Danoff]

I actually think that one needs a little re-thinking. I think there's actually a stronger justification for personal gun ownership in self-defense.

Overall, I still find it disturbing that 4 of our supreme court justices found that states were allowed to violate the 2nd amendment. Especially hypocritical given that these same justices would probably think the opposite of the first amendment.

I mean, here we have a state saying "we'll put you in jail for owning a gun" even though the 2nd amendment says your right to gun ownership (and carrying) shall not be infringed. This would be equivalent to a state saying "we'll put you in jail if you say anything against christianity" even though the constitution guarantees you that freedom.

We have 4 supreme court justices who would strike down the latter but not the former. It's not a matter of whether they think one is right and the other is wrong. It's a matter of interpreting the constitution - and they're saying that the constitution guarantees one of these things and does NOT guarantee the other.

Not good.

 

[LeftyWright69]

With all of the evidence of gun crime used to promote laws against guns, it is the psycho libs mission to restrict information on how many lives are saved every day by those who pack heat

. “ rat-a-tat tat goes my big fat gat”


Hay Jonn Paul Stephens " EAT ME "

 

[sumbrownkid]

That's exactly what they had in mind, to prevent any sort of tyranny that the founding fathers had all been used to.

I know this is off-topic, but I find it funny how our founding fathers found the British to be tyrannical, but yet they owned slaves....

Other than that, Mayor Daley will get his way. I lived near Chicago for eleven years and he pretty much got his way 99% of the time. But a rough city needs a rough mayor.

 

[Tandem]

There is a clause in the Declaration of Independence which states that when a government becomes abusive of the rights of the people, it is the right of the people to amend or abolish it (government). I believe this is the logical basis for the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, as it theoretically gives the people the means (guns) to enforce change in the government. Is there any disagreement or equivocation to this notion?

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

While your conclusion may be logical, the evidence points to an intellectual argument / rationalization, so I don't believe that the Second Amendment originated with this as the main motive. During the late 18th century, the United States was essentially a jumbled conglomeration of sovereign states "united" through the Articles of Confederation. State armies were not permitted, perhaps from bitter memories of the British, but militias were allowed. Convenience was also a factor; in the event of an attack from a foreign land, the national government would not be able to respond quickly enough to deploy troops and prevent a massacre. When the Constitution was revised with the Bill of Rights, the relatively primitive modes of transportation available still left militias, as well as reasonable access to firearms for civilians a necessity.

The bill of rights was initially imposed to restrict the power of the national government, not expand the powers of the people. Article V already suggests a method through which the Constitution could be changed, which was rather wise of them as it eliminates the need for an often ineffective grassroots revolution to change the government type (I am not talking about political parties). I doubt that the founding fathers intended to promote violent uprising against the government that they created, even the anti-Federalists.

 

[Joel]

You guys are lucky you still can fight for your gun rights. They're non existent up here.

Here, an AK-47 is illegal because it looks scary, but I can buy an SKS carbine, and it's perfectly legal. Ar-15's are illegal for the same reason, but I can buy another semi auto rifle which fires 5.56. Also, any "centre fire" cartridge, is restricted to a 5 round mag unless manual (bolt/pump/lever action, etc.) operation. Shotguns are only allowed 3 shells (2 in the mag, one in the chamber).

Oh, know how i mentioned that an auto loading gun can only have a 5 round mag if it's "centre fire"? Well that restriction is not there for "rim fire" (eg. .22) cartridges. That's right, I buy that SKS I was talking about earlier, it's got to be capped at 5 rounds. But I could 100% legally go and buy a .22 and put a 500 round mag in it, and fire away. The laws here are just ridiculous. I could also theoretically buy a 7.62x51 bolt rifle with a 100 round mag, but an FN FAL has to be capped at 5 (if they're even legal, after all, they do look scary).

Don't even get me started on the gun registry. It's turned law abiding citizens into criminals because they forgot to tell the government about "grandpa's old 12 gauge" up in the attic. It honestly enrages me. Not to mention the tax dollars that are needlessly pissed away. How is regulating Grandpa's shotgun going to keep a criminal on the streets of Toronto from using handguns illegally imported from the USA?

I urge anyone in the US who gives a damn about their rights to fight for them, before you end up with what's happened here.


Edit: AR-15's are not Illegal (prohibited), but are restricted. Which means you have to pass 2 tests, get 2 licences, deal with 2 sets of red tape, 2 price mark ups, tell the police about it, tell the government about it, uggghhhh....

 

[Nicksfix]

I urge anyone in the US who gives a damn about their rights to fight for them, before you end up with what's happened here.

Thats why I belong to the NRA

Your right,fight for your rights.

 

[mazdaman]

I don't understand the people that votes for this at times.......

 

[Seismica]

It's quite sad that 4 justices don't respect the 2nd amendment. Our nations constitution means exactly what it says.

The second amendment is outdated. And it also depends how you interpret it... it could be interpreted that people are allowed to keep guns so that should they be called up to join the militia, they could supply their own weapons. It dates back to a time when the militia of the continental army had to be supplied with weapons, and this was very expensive.

Although, i'm not totally familiar with US gun laws. The second amendment isn't the only law relating to guns... but it seriously needs revising to bring it up to date with modern times. They're not seriously under threat from invasion, why do they need to have guns?

 

[Tornado]

They're not seriously under threat from invasion, why do they need to have guns?

Why does the (incredibly debatable) lack of a need of something give the government permission to take that something away?

 

[Seismica]

Why does the (incredibly debatable) lack of a need of something give the government permission to take that something away?

Why was the right to bear arms given in the first place?

But then again, they can change the laws, they can make gun ownership illegal, thats a lot of guns to round up. And as someone said above, a change in the law would just turn hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of law abiding citizens into criminals.

It's just one of those things that has no solution. They can't just amend the second amendement (Did that make sense?). But gun crime is always going to be a big problem in the US as a result. They can't change that.

 

[Tornado]

Why was the right to bear arms given in the first place?

That doesn't particularly matter, because the reasons for owning guns have evolved and the government still can't use the justification of stripping rights simply because they view the citizens don't need them.

But gun crime is always going to be a big problem in the US as a result. They can't change that.

Gun crime in America isn't a direct result of the allowance of civilian gun ownership. A lot of people who perform gun crimes (and I won't cite numbers because I don't have a clue what they are. I would assume it was a majority, but please take that with a grain of salt) in America aren't allowed to own guns in the first place.

 

[Danoff]

The second amendment is outdated. And it also depends how you interpret it... it could be interpreted that people are allowed to keep guns so that should they be called up to join the militia, they could supply their own weapons. It dates back to a time when the militia of the continental army had to be supplied with weapons, and this was very expensive.

Although, i'm not totally familiar with US gun laws. The second amendment isn't the only law relating to guns... but it seriously needs revising to bring it up to date with modern times. They're not seriously under threat from invasion, why do they need to have guns?

This was done during DC v. Heller. You should read the majority opinion on that. They explain that the militia argument was basically an instantiation of a more fundamental right to self-defense. It's not about assembling militias, but about being able to defend yourself against an aggressor - be that the government or an individual.

According to the supreme court, we have a right to guns because we have a fundamental right to self defense. And because of the 14th amendment, no state is allowed to abridge that fundamental right.

But then again, they can change the laws, they can make gun ownership illegal, thats a lot of guns to round up. And as someone said above, a change in the law would just turn hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of law abiding citizens into criminals.

All laws infringing the 2nd amendment will necessarily be stricken down by any court it is challenged in. The only way to make gun ownership illegal in this country is to either amend the constitution (not likely) or pack the supreme court with judges who are willing to interpret the constitution badly (much more likely).

 

[Jim Prower]

I hope he doesn't restrict his gun laws. I fear the night before last we got a glimpse of the future when an upscale restaraunt in a nice part of town was held up by a group of armed robbers. If he bans 'em, they'll just head south...

I hate Chicago.

 

[mazdaman]

I hope he doesn't restrict his gun laws. I fear the night before last we got a glimpse of the future when an upscale restaraunt in a nice part of town was held up by a group of armed robbers. If he bans 'em, they'll just head south...

I hate Chicago.

There is nothing wrong with "chitown" in certain parts that is because I've been there and the people are nice and they greet you. When your walking down the streets but some parts I'll never visit.