The entire population of Illinois doesn't reside in Chicago. Your assertion that Illinois does not protect a right to keep and bear arms is false.
Posted on 05/02/2007 2:14:58 PM PDT by neverdem
There is a case working its way to the Supreme Court that might settle one of the biggest unanswered questions in constitutional law: Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to own a gun? Whether or not you own a gun, this is a case you should care about.
I’m not just saying that because I’m the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association. (Last month I completed my two-year term as president and nine years as an officer of the NRA.) I’m also saying it as an attorney who’s been arguing cases in federal court for more than 30 years, and who understands how a clear precedent on a constitutional question can determine the outcome of a case.
There is a case moving towards the High Court that will likely give us such a precedent on your right to own a gun – a precedent that is either good or bad, depending on your point of view. That case is Parker v. District of Columbia.
I often get asked why there is such a passionate debate on whether the right to own a firearm is a civil right. Everyone agrees that the Constitution speaks about firearms. The Second Amendment speaks of, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
The disagreement is over what those words mean. Most people believe what is called the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, meaning that all law-abiding, peaceable citizens have the individual right to own firearms. The opposing interpretation is called the collective rights view, meaning that the Second Amendment is only a right of state governments to arm their National Guard units.
Polls show that more than 70% of Americans (correctly) believe that they have a civil right under the Constitution to own a gun. But in America we don’t decide constitutional controversies by taking a poll.
Only federal courts—and ultimately the Supreme Court—have the power to interpret the Constitution in a binding way. The Supreme Court has never spoken definitively on the scope or meaning of the Second Amendment. And the Court’s silence has allowed cities and states to enact broad, sweeping laws hostile to gun ownership.
The worst of these laws is the District of Columbia gun ban. If you live in our nation’s capital, you cannot have a handgun or a readily-usable rifle or shotgun in your own home for self-defense. No ifs, ands or buts. It is a near-blanket prohibition on firearms and self-defense.
That brings us to the Parker case. The named plaintiff, Shelly Parker, lives in the high crime area of DC and has been threatened by thugs and drug dealers. She wants to be able to protect herself and she sued the city government over the gun ban. It’s shocking to realize that in one of the most violent cities in America, a woman is denied the tool that might save her life.
But it’s the law in the District, so she took the District to court.
On March 9, in a landmark ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the DC gun ban as unconstitutional in a 2-1 decision. The DC Circuit Court held that the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s civil right to own firearms, adopting the individual rights view, and invalidated the DC law.
As you would expect, the DC government is appealing the ruling. Earlier this month DC petitioned for what is called an en banc rehearing. That means that all eleven eligible judges on the DC Circuit would hear the case, instead of the usual three-judge panel. As you read this we are waiting to see if the circuit court grants or denies that petition.
Regardless of whether the full DC Circuit Court hears the case en banc, the losing party will certainly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. And without going into all the legal rules and reasons that help determine whether the Court takes a given case, let me just say the odds are good that the Court will take this one.
This case is monumental. Already the DC Circuit Court opinion—if left untouched—will totally change gun ownership rights in the District of Columbia. And the DC Circuit is one of the most respected and well-credentialed courts in America. Its opinions and rulings have a major impact on courts and lawmakers all over the country.
But as important as the DC Circuit is, it pales in comparison to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court takes this case, it could have a huge impact all across our land.
There’s so much more to be said regarding this case. I’ll have more to write on this once the DC Circuit decides whether to rehear en banc. In the meantime, this is a case you want to be watching. There’s a lot at stake, not just for gun owners but for all who believe in upholding the Constitution and enforcing our civil rights.
Sandy Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America, only the second woman and the first Jewish American to hold that office in the 136-year history of the NRA.
Deafening silence.
Meant to type 18th Amendment, not 11th...
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
SAN FRANCISCO - A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by an alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. The NRA sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.
In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.
A flat out and out lie, subversion, semantic and game playing.
Anybody who claims there is not one state where an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is not protected is a duplicitous liar with respect to the subject at hand.
That Constitution clear says the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Implicit in this right are that the types of firearms people are “allowed to own” should be reasonable.
A person who argues in the circular, manipulating manner that robertpaulson does would look at an American Society where every type of firearm is banned with the sole exception of long rifles with barrels over 30-inches long that fire .22 long rifle bullets. Such a person could argue, “see, you still have the right to keep and bear arms.”
The issue here is NOT that some firearms are allowed to be owned by some people in some states. New York City and Chicago have defacto bans on handguns, the wonderful state laws referenced by robertpaulson notwithstanding. The fact is, our constitutional rights are infringed in most states, severely in some states and less so in others.
The silence is only deafening because normal, reasonable people know how severely firearms rights are INFRINGED upon in several states, while a delusional person like robertpaulson would have us believe otherwise, which is a dangerous lie.
Funny, but if robertpaulson moved to Chicago and had to post how well the State of Illinois protected his right to own and carry firearms for his protection, I am certain the silence would be deafening.
I take it back. He would babble on incoherently regardless...
I notice that you haven't dared to name a state.
"In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession."
Poor you.
Well said.
There are approximately 1.2 million valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card holders in Illinois, your false assertions notwithstanding.
BTW, attacking posters without the courtesy of a ping indicates poor manners - and fear.
Also, you two need to go back and re-read Art 6 para 2 and Art 4 Set 2. Then re-read the Second Amendment. It really is as simple as that.
No "incorporation" was necessary as the Founders wrote an "inclusion" clause when passing the BoR that stipulated the BoR apply as part of the Constitution.
With no limiter on the 2nd RKBA protection, as in the Firsts "Congress shall make no law", then the Supremacy clause is effective and applies to all States who have either ratified the Constitution or been accepted into the Union.
I know these facts are wasted on you both. At this point, I'm not even talking to you... but those who are lurking or otherwise reading this thread.
You need to learn how to read. I asked how many people in Chicago are protected by Illinois’s laws and you come back with everyone who is protected outside of Chicago.
CHICAGO. NOT ILLINOIS. CHICAGO. I KNOW MANY PEOPLE IN ILLINOIS DO NOT LIVE IN CITIES TRYING TO INFRINGE THEIR RKBA RIGHTS. I SAID “CHICAGO”.
Please learn to read before you embarrass yourself further.
The entire population of Illinois doesn't reside in Chicago. Your assertion that Illinois does not protect a right to keep and bear arms is false.
Do you know what is required for your average Minnesotan to buy say, a Mini-14? Or an S&W Ladysmith in .38 cal?
Until recently, MN was a "may issue" State instead of a "shall issue" State and that is still on the verge of being repealed last I heard.
Hardly a healthy respect for Individual RKBA envisioned by the Founders and codified in the Constitution.
Poor all of us. Mostly BECAUSE of idiots like you...
BTW:
“Firearms may be transported under the general rule through Chicago for a lawful recreational firearm-related activity.” —NRA-ILA
Poor you.
YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ... YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ...
http://www.packing.org/state/illinois/
State’s localities with differing (more or less strict) laws:
Chicago
General notes
Date updated: Jul 29, 2005 @ 8:44:21 pm EDT
The City of Chicago requires registration of all firearms. Registration of handguns was closed by Mayor Jane Byrne in March of 1982. Since then, no new registrations are accepted, only renewal of existing registrations.
YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ... YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ...
The State of Illinois does nothing to protect the right of people living in Chicago to own and use firearms. Nothing.
YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ... YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ...
A "couple"? That was a list of 21 gun shows.
Clinton math.
“Firearms may be transported under the general rule through Chicago for a lawful recreational firearm-related activity.” —NRA-ILA
If ignorance were gold, you could buy and sell Bill Gates.
Your assertion that Illinois does not protect a right to keep and bear arms is false.
YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ... YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ...
Here is my statement...
“...if robertpaulson moved to Chicago and had to post how well the State of Illinois protected his right to own and carry firearms for his protection...”
IN CHICAGO. YES, I AM SHOUTING. BECAUSE NOT ONLY CAN YOU NOT READ BUT YOU APPARENTLY CANNOT HEAR ME, EITHER. I SAID CHICAGO. NOT CARBONDALE. NOT KANKAKEE. CHICAGO. I SAID IF ROBERTPAULSON MOVED TO CHICAGO, THE STATE OF ILLINOIS WOULD NOT HAVE ANY LAW THAT PROTECTED HIS RIGHT TO OWN AND CARRY A GUN AGAINST THE LAWS OF CHICAGO INFRINGING UPON THAT RIGHT.
YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ... YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ...
But you will have to learn from someone other than me. You are hopeless. Good luck with your disinformation campaign elsewhere. Say hello to Sarah Brady for me. Love ya.
Name one. Everytime you've tried so far you've been spanked.
Thanks.
It is amazing how many people think that a government scheme whereby you must petition to some ‘crat for permission to own a firearm of a certain type constitutes that State protecting your right to own a firearm.
Either they are morons or simply VPC employees.
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.