Posted on 03/06/2010 1:43:10 PM PST by foutsc
Supreme Court Appears Ready To Overturn Chicago Gun Ban Ordinance
If the early reports coming out of Washington D.C. are correct, we will not have to listen to the nonsense Mayor Richard Daley has been spinning for years. Mayor Daley has defended the city's handgun ban as being necessary and reasonable. Reasonable? For Whom?
The New American - Partial Victory Could Have Other Implications
So while the anticipated Supreme Court decision may represent a partial victory to some, and an unconstitutional infringement on the powers of state governments to others, the future of gun rights in America generally looks brighter than it did just a few years ago. After all, more and more Americans are beginning to appreciate that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable gift from their Creator which “shall not be infringed” by government. And that is encouraging news.
Mr McDonald’s lawsuit against Chicago’s gun laws reached the Supreme Court this week. It was the moment gun-lovers had been waiting for since 2008, when the court struck down as unconstitutional a similar handgun ban in Washington, DC. By a 5-4 majority, the justices ruled then that the second amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms” applies to individuals, not just members of a militia.The question now is whether this right applies only in a federal enclave such as Washington, DC, or nationwide. Judging by the questions the justices threw at Chicago’s lawyer on March 2nd, the answer is “nationwide”.
The first ten amendments to the constitution (the Bill of Rights) originally bound only the federal government. But the rights contained in them, such as free speech, have mostly been applied to the states via the “due process” clause of the 14th amendment. (“Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law…”) This is the most likely way that the court’s slim majority will extend gun rights to the whole country.
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. -- 2nd Amendment to The US Constitution
Do not celebrate a decision until it is made. The recent history with this administration is that they will leave no stone unturned in their endeavors. This includes getting to that ‘5th’ vote from SCOTUS......
We all know how the 4 court leftists will decide. Imagine sitting on the court, never having read the Constitution. One can only hope the 4 sane members and Kennedy will make the correct decision.
IRONIC, isn’t it...knowing that actual Americans will NEVER rise up to reclaim their nation and rights until their right to keep and bear arms has been destroyed, all the while HOPING that our 2nd amendment rights never ARE destroyed!
As much as I love the 2nd Amendment, I don’t consider having the USSC force it down our throats to be anything worth celebrating.
The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states. They had their own constitutions, ‘cuz they were seperate, sovereign governing bodies where the fedgov was rarely allowed to interfere with.
As much as I would like to see the city of Chicago get a grip & repeal its gun ban, I do NOT Washington, D.C. to make the decision for them & the rest of the states. IMHO, anyone that believes in federalisn & decentralized government should support the city of Chicago in this case.
To the left Rowe vs. Wade is settled law and man-made climate change is settled science but as long as Americans are armed the second amendment will continue to be attacked.
What do the STATE constitutions say about that issue? I think that it’s safe to say that most of them protect a person’s RKBA to a great extent.
B4 I forget, the states aren’t “allowed” to do anything. The fedgov is a creation of the states, not vice-versa...& these rights are inherent in them & the People. It is the states that have ceded only a few, limited # of powers to the feds.
Sounds great: But don’t count your chickens till they hatch.
Check out Kennedy’s questioning in McDonald v. Chicago oral arguments - shows where his head is at ...
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I understood the Chief Justice’s question — maybe I misunderstood it, but my understanding of the question that’s important is this. Under incorporation by reference, the States are bound by the rights in all — with all of the refinements and sophistication with which we interpret them for the Federal Government. It’s the same. You don’t just apply the core of the right. You apply all of the right as it is elaborated by the cases.
Is — is that same consequence — does that same consequence follow if we adopt the privileges and
immunities interpretation that you are urging upon us?
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But I thought its rationale was that because of its fundamental character, the right to bear arms must be understood as separate from the qualifying phrase of the militia clause, all people, most people in the United States, the public meaning of the Second Amendment was that there was an individual right to bear arms, and that’s because it was fundamental. If it’s not fundamental, then Heller is wrong, it seems to me.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Without repeating that and just so I understand your position, how could some member of the Court write the — this opinion to say that this right is not fundamental, but that Heller was correct?
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Do you think there is existing authority with reference to other provisions of the Bill of Rights that would allow us to incorporate just the core of Heller with respect to the States? Just the core of the Second Amendment with respect to the States, along the lines to this question Justice Stevens was asking earlier?
[and immediately following]
JUSTICE KENNEDY: And if so, what’s — what case do we look to for that proposition?
Read the full case at:
http://radioviceonline.com/full-text-of-arguments-mcdonald-v-chicago/
If you insist on looking @ it that way, then I guess so. What does the constitution of the State of Illinois say about this? Like I said, the Bill of Rights were never intended to apply to the states. As a matter of fact, several of the Founders didn't believe that a Bill of Rights was necessary in the 1st place -- & for a while we were governed w/o one.
Chris, that’s just nuts.
End of discussion, really.
By your logic the City of Chicago could enact Slavery Laws. Ban religion outright. Close down every newspaper in Chicago along with every Radio and TV station they didn't like. Or have their police barge into your home without a warrant and then compel you to incriminate yourself.
The Bill of Rights delineates certain Unalienable Rights all citizens of the USA have and that come from God, ergo are unalienable. And the 9th and 10th Amendments take care of our other Unalienable Rights not mentioned in the other eight.
Rooty Julia Annie thought like you, that the US Constitution stopped where he said it did in NYC (and it wasn't just his anti gun crap). That got him a long way didn't it.
Nope...the D.C. v. Heller was related to a Washington, D.C. case, & the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority over the District.
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.