Posted on 04/29/2005 5:23:31 PM PDT by P_A_I
You are so full of it. The USSC could easily rule that "bears arms" meant open carry.
So don't give me your crap that it "clearly" protects concealed carry.
My error. It never got that far.
The lower federal courts have all refused to even hear any second amendment challenges due to a state law, saying that the second amendment is only a bar to federal action.
Yes, it is illegal to own a gun in Chicago. You cannot possess one, own one, borrow one, or even keep one in your house or apartment for personal protection or any other reason (even collection).
There are no gun stores in Chicago. No shooting ranges. You cannot even buy ammunition in Chicago.
The State of Illinois has "home rule". The State of Illinois does not ban guns. But if a city wishes to do so, they may. You never heard of the landmark case, Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982)?
"In its opinion, Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 532 F.Supp. 1169 (N.D.Ill. 1981), the district court set forth several reasons for upholding the handgun ban's validity under the state and federal constitutions. First, it held that the Ordinance which banned only certain kinds of arms was a valid exercise of Morton Grove's police power and did not conflict with section 22's conditional right to keep and bear arms. Second, relying on Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886), the court concluded that the second amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms has not been incorporated into the fourteenth amendment and, therefore, is inapplicable to Morton Grove. Finally, it stated that the ninth amendment does not include the right to possess handguns for self-defense."
Chicago bans guns, Morton Grove bans guns, Wilmette bans guns -- remember the case where the Wilmette citizen shot a robber and was charged with owning a gun?
"There remained only the question of whether DeMar would be charged with, and fined for, violating Wilmette’s repugnant handgun ban. Initially, it appeared that he would not be. The Associated Press reported on January 1 that "Wilmette police say a homeowner who shot an intruder during a break-in will not be charged with violating the affluent Chicago suburb’s handgun ban." But one week later Mr. DeMar was charged with violating the ban. In a news release, Police Chief George Carpenter, a staunch advocate of the ban, claimed that "choosing to use a handgun" in self-defense when an intruder breaks into the home at night "actually reduces your family’s safety." He added, "It would be unfortunate and potentially tragic to conclude from this incident that Wilmette families will be safer if they keep a handgun in their homes. The opposite is true. Wilmette families are in greater danger if they keep a handgun at home."
Here I thought you were up on these gun issues. You really don't have a clue, do you?
You would have us all believe that the second amendment is protecting us, when it doesn't at all. Learn this: Your RKBA is protected by the constitution of the state in which you live. Period.
"Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin." --BROOKS v. U S, 267 U.S. 432 (1925)
Congress certainly does NOT have the delegated power, enumerated in the Constitution, to 'regulate' interstate commerce by forbidding and punishing such commerce.
They are using the clause as a pretext to control "immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm" ..
You are so full of it.
Words have meaning, and 'bear arms', in context, means carry arms.
The USSC could easily rule that "bears arms" meant open carry.
Sure they could 'rule' that way, but it would be repugnant to constitutional principles. Other remedies to such an infringement would then apply. I suspect a number of States would refuse to obey such a rule..
So don't give me your crap that it "clearly" protects concealed carry.
Again you show you true contempt for our RKBA's. -- Thanks.
And they could just as easily rule that "bear arms" meant concealed carry.
Since both are means of bearing arms, both decisions would be wrong. It's laughable to consider that our Founders would protect us from government interference if we wear a pistol holstered at our hip, but would deny such protection because we put a raincoat over it when it rains.
What you are describing is a State Court inventing a penumbra'd right in the US Constitution. The loser could appeal the case to USSC on that basis, regardless of whether the Second Amendment existed or not. And we have already assumed that CC is not protected according to USSC.
For sake of argument, what's the worst case? The State Supreme Court would void the CC law for that state only.
Again the case could be challenged in the USSC.
What if, however, the State Supreme Court ruled the CC law constitutional and the citizen then took it to the USSC? Would they even hear it? (I'll explain in a bit) Again, for sake of argument, let's say they take the case.
With either ruling, the case could go to USSC, since they found a penumbra'd right in the US Constitution.
Again, worst case, the USSC finds that the state CC law violates the citizen's right to X. But again, the ruling would only affect that state because all state CC laws are different, and the USSC cannot declare that every one of them, as written, violates a citizens right to X.
That's why I don't think the USSC would even hear the case, especially when the citizen's own State Supreme Court could see no violation, and no other citizens are bringing suit against their states.
You are leaving out the penumbra'd right the State Court invented from the US Constitution. That would be open to challenge in the USSC.
OK. Now let's incorporate the second amendment. The second amendment now applies to all the states. The USSC determines what rights are protected under the second amendment, and we both agree for sake of argument that CC is not a protected right.
A citizen claims the a state CC law (which, again, the USSC does not even recognize as a constitutionally protected right) violates his constitutional right to X. Now, there is no dilemma, no conflict. The law is struck down, AND is struck down in all 45 states that allow CC.
Why would the following be true for an unincorporated SA and not true for an incorporated one?
"the ruling would only affect that state because all state CC laws are different, and the USSC cannot declare that every one of them, as written, violates a citizens right to X."
Once the Court says that the Second does not protect CC, then it (Second Amendment) is no longer relevant to any CC cases. The case is only about the penumbra'd right.
I'm saying that it is not "clear" whatsoever that "bear arms" means concealed. I say the court can just as easily rule that bear arms means open carry.
"It's laughable to consider that our Founders would protect us from government interference if we wear a pistol holstered at our hip, but would deny such protection because we put a raincoat over it when it rains."
"The Attorney General for the State, argued that it was competent for the Legislature to prohibit the wearing of concealed weapons, that such a law did not conflict with the constitutional provision, which guarantied to the citizen the right to bear arms in the defence of himself and the State. That the statute under which the defendant was convicted, did not impair that right, while it proposed to discountenance by punishment, a practice which had been greatly promotive of violence and bloodshed. Every man was still left free to carry arms openly, the only manner in which they could be used for defensive purposes".
-- State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 35 Am. Dec. 44 (1840)
The court agreed.
And other courts have ruled that open carry is disallowed for various reasons. Both are wrong.
And a raincoat concealing a firearm creates a concealed firearm whether it is raining or not.
Geez Louise. Where did I say that? I said that a citizen brought a case claiming his constitutional right to X was violated by the CC law. What "penumbra"? It's some right -- make one up! Who the f$%^ cares what X is?
Cripes. Look, if you need one, say that X is his right to liberty protected by the 5th amendment. He is claiming a loss of freedom to move about safely because of others engaged in CC. It's not important.
I do not want to try the case on this forum. That's why I didn't want to be specific.
Now, armed with this, please address my post #152.
Oh? Then who's right?
Geez Louise. Where did I say that? I said that a citizen brought a case claiming his constitutional right to X was violated by the CC law. What "penumbra"?
Post #122:
If challenged, the State Supreme Court would weigh the two rights (the clear state constitutionally protected right to CC vs. some penumbra'd right that is violated). --robertpaulsen
So you meant some penumbra'd right in the State Constitution, rather than the US Constitution?
It's some right -- make one up! Who the f$%^ cares what X is? Cripes. Look, if you need one, say that X is his right to liberty protected by the 5th amendment. He is claiming a loss of freedom to move about safely because of others engaged in CC. It's not important.
So your scenario did indeed involve a right in the US Constitution that the State Court ruled on, yes?
If so, my reply stands as is. Your turn.
I said, take my post #152 and substitute a "5th amendment right to liberty" for X. Got it?
Now let's not argue whether or not the citizen has a case. I am not interested in that. Just substitute and comment.
I'm not quite sure what you meant....
Was your intent to state that the North used the Constitution to abolish slavery?
or...
That both institutions met simultaneous demise?
How are the State Governments not included in this if it is, as it states, "the Right of the people"?
This is America in 2005.
All vestiges of that pesky 'freedom' thing are being swept aside.
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.