Posted on 02/22/2013 11:35:06 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee
It would seem from a classical definition that it would, as you said, allow the state to negate a recognized right, which doesn't make a lick of sense.
Unfortunately, you are incorrect. In constitutional law lingo, "police power" refers to the power of state and local legislatvie bodies to pass laws that are rationaly related to the preservation or promotion of public health, safety, or welfare.
The dem side is spending govt money. They figure if they stall long enough, the other side will run out of funding.
I don’t know exactly who you are saying is incorrect. The “police power” isn’t unlimited legislative power, although it grants states certain specific legal rights, but vis a vis federal law and in this case the right to keep and bear arms. See here:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_94
Chicago and Madigan are on very weak ground in using the police power to enforce gun rights. What is the health, safety or welfare issue there?
Also, keep in mind that Illinois has essentially abandoned care for the seriously mentally ill. Only liberals could think this way.
What I suspect is they’ll scramble to create a law onerous enough to keep blacks from getting guns which could be just the opening necessary to break the Dem hold on Cook County...am I dreaming?
Keep in mind that this is a desperate last stand for Illinois liberals. The reason Hamilton is arguing the “police power” perspective is that’s all they have.
Unfortunately, the facts and the law are against them.
If I were formulating strategy against them I’d wait until the legislature writes and passes the law (working to make it as broad as possible) and then chip away at it.
I like the 12th Article of the IL Constitution. I’d like to do some research on court cases involving it. I suspect they’re very sparse. But, if every able-bodied citizen is a member then it cannot be fulfilled by the Illinois National Guard and must apply to all of us. If I am expected to serve, I must be prepared, armed and trained.
We have cc here in Illinois, but it is a technicality in the law. It has worked in every case I know of, but you still go to jail, have to win in court and get your guns back. Not my idea of any kind of right at all.
One other thing to consider is the 1st Amendment. The argument is often made that you cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater. That isn’t true - you can shout “fire” in a crowded theater, but must suffer the consequences of your lie or error. It is the same with any right, no?
Therefore the 2nd is an absolute right, but it doesn’t protect you from your infringements on the rights of others nor against torts for your actions. It’s really simple, yet liberals have fluffed it up completely.
I certainly never learned any of this while in government school.
Good point .... Stay safe !
Yes a bullet was dodged.
But I really hate dodging bullets by only one vote. Democrats can afford to lose many times. They just keep coming back. We can only lose once, and its over.
Freedom still stands...by only one vote.
From one of the left-wing dissenters: ““The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether .. the individual right to keep and bear arms at home under the Second Amendment extends beyond the home,” Hamilton wrote.”
That shouldn’t be too hard. It’s the right to “keep and bear” arms. Bear means to carry. I can’t imagine the founders were talking about carrying your guns around the house.
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.