Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun Rights: SCOTUS Set to Slap Down Chicago Gun Grabbers
Western Hero ^ | 6 March 2010 | Silverfiddle

Posted on 03/06/2010 1:43:10 PM PST by foutsc

Here are some links to the Chicago Gun Ban case before the Supreme Court. It's looking good for us!

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. 

The Economist

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


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; chicago; constitution; guns; lawsuit; mcdonaldvchicago; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

1 posted on 03/06/2010 1:43:10 PM PST by foutsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: foutsc

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......


2 posted on 03/06/2010 1:47:01 PM PST by Gaffer ("Profling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foutsc

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.


3 posted on 03/06/2010 1:49:12 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foutsc
We know what they should do , why am I expecting a split baby ? 30 years in the law racket can transform you from a healthy skeptic into sad cynic if you lose your sense of humor.
4 posted on 03/06/2010 1:50:58 PM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foutsc

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!


5 posted on 03/06/2010 1:56:37 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

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.


6 posted on 03/06/2010 2:09:01 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

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.


7 posted on 03/06/2010 2:09:19 PM PST by dogcaller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: wolf24

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.


9 posted on 03/06/2010 2:15:19 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wolf24

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.


10 posted on 03/06/2010 2:18:38 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: foutsc

Sounds great: But don’t count your chickens till they hatch.


11 posted on 03/06/2010 2:21:33 PM PST by JamesA (You don't have to be big to stand tall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer; All

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/


12 posted on 03/06/2010 2:21:53 PM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: wolf24
So we should support the city of Chicago in their denial of the 2nd amendment rights to the citizens?

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.

14 posted on 03/06/2010 2:32:14 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

Chris, that’s just nuts.


15 posted on 03/06/2010 2:36:02 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
Believe what you want. There is very little difference betw this issue & what the USSC did in the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. Remember that one? That's the one that said that queers have the "right to privacy", therefore the state of TX had no right to outlaw sodomy. Different issue, but same result. It contines the concentration of power away from the states & local governments & towards Washington, D.C. by judicial decree.
16 posted on 03/06/2010 2:42:01 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR
"... Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right." -- D.C. vs. Heller

End of discussion, really.

17 posted on 03/06/2010 2:51:10 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR
Sorry newbie, wrong answers.

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.

18 posted on 03/06/2010 2:57:22 PM PST by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits [A. Einstein])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR
I got my rights from my Father in Heaven ; neither state , nor feds , nor upright walking ape can ever revoke them . Some may infringe upon them , but I don't surrender .
19 posted on 03/06/2010 3:01:59 PM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
End of discussion, really.

Nope...the D.C. v. Heller was related to a Washington, D.C. case, & the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority over the District.

20 posted on 03/06/2010 3:10:27 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson