Posted on 10/07/2009 2:04:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Whatever significance is attached to Chicago’s failed bid to host the 2016 Olympics, it is of small importance to the rest of the country. More far-reaching and frightening is the Supreme Court’s decision to take up a case challenging the city’s ban on handgun ownership in the court’s new term, which begins this week.
The case is best considered a preview of coming attractions. The gun lobby, if it wins in the Supreme Court, is prepared to challenge every gun control law enacted at any level of government. It will usher in a scary season of assault on the common sense of citizens, law enforcement officials and others who believe that carrying today’s high-powered weapons in an urbanized, mobile—and angry—society is chillingly dangerous, and deadly.
Since the high court last year struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun ownership, gun rights advocates have eagerly awaited a case that would extend the decision to states and localities. Because the District of Columbia is a federal entity, a different case was needed to establish that states and municipalities don’t have the right to impose broad gun restrictions. Chicago has become the test case.
Almost no one expects the conservative-leaning court to uphold Chicago’s prohibition, which applies only to handguns. Owners of rifles used in hunting, for example, are unaffected by the local law.
This distinction says much about the current state of gun politics. Only about a decade ago, gun rights activists often claimed that they wanted their weapons in order to hunt. They would evoke childhood memories of kinship that grew in the woods as one generation of hunters passed an ancient art on to another.
Those arguments seem as quaint now as the assumption that reasonable people do not bring firearms to political events featuring the president..(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at truthdig.com ...
We're just doing our part to restore civility to our society.
There would be that messy little task of collecting hundreds of millions of firearms from citizens, though. I predict that won't go well.
SkyDancer wrote:
All they have to do is sneak in a provision declaring gun control by the feds in some innocuous bill such like they’re doing with health care ... guns gone ....
That won’t work. The Heller decision last year did away with that option. In DC v. Heller, SCOTUS ruled that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” as protected in the Second amendment is a right for individuals to keep and bear arms. So any federal law to outlaw individual ownership of firearms would run afoul of the precedent of DC v. Heller.
The case this year involves Chicago. And the main question is one of “incorporation.” That’s the principle that the 14th amendment, the language “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,"” means that the states can’t violate a person’s second amendment rights. The court in the past has ruled that the first amendment, the fourth amendment, the fifth and sixth amendments all apply to the state due to this language in the 14th amendment. They have never ruled whether that also means that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.
| From the desk of cc2k: |
“Ms. Marie Cocco can write at length of her opposition to RKBA without mentioning the second amendment. It’s a unique ability of the Left to ignore facts.”
That’s because the Constitution is irrelevant to the Left. They look upon the United States as just another unfairly rich country for them to “convert” to socialism.
Molon Labe.
Actually it was law enforcement politicians which is what most police chiefs and county sherrifs are. As politicians they are MOSTLY risk averse and seek only the preservation of their political life.
“Owners of rifles used in hunting, for example, are unaffected by the local law.”
The editors at The Washington Post write this as kinda proof that Chicago recognizes some aspect of the Second Amendment.
News flash to those people: The Second Amendment never was about hunting.
I’m trying to guess what is the one thing Barack Insane Obama’s administration will do that will have Americans hold their collective breath as in OMG!
I’m trying to guess what is the one thing Barack Insane Obama’s administration will do that will have Americans hold their collective breath as in OMG!
For that matter,what do you think Rosie O'Donuts' bodyguards might say about this case?????
Which is why I believe the WaPo and Slimes are written to reach a few thousand people in and near government power. They make it clear that they want a 5-4 decision that goes their way.
These are people who can send notes, emails, and phone calls to USSC justices, and expect to have them returned. They just have to remind a couple of fence-sitters how the wrong ruling will destroy life as they know it.
Marie Cocco can thank America’s civilian marksmen, who became the brilliant shooters of the European and Pacific theaters during World War II, that she’s got the freedom to blather on in English, rather than doing hard time in a German or Japanese penal colony. Clearly, she’s an empty-headed idiot.
There. Fixed it.
BLOAT
We are simply reaching the point of irreconcileable differences on a host of critical issues in this nation. Dictatorship, dissolution, civil war are the only likely results. I advocate none of these - I am just doing the math.
I just don’t see the Constitution fairy coming in and restoring liberty. Not with the domestic enemies in the positions they hold.
Yeah...that's never happened before.
| Al Capone |
 |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.