1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

The next court case to watch...

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by TNCoach, Oct 5, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TNCoach

    TNCoach Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    579
    National Rifle Association v. Chicago / McDonald v. Chicago
    At issue: Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.

    A pair of cases challenge Chicago's 27-year-old ban on handgun sales within the city limits. Originally designed to curb violence in the city, the ban has long irked Second Amendment advocates, who take an expansive view of the amendment's wording that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But the Supreme Court had long held that the Second Amendment pertained only to federal laws, until a 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a ban on handguns and automatic weapons in Washington, D.C. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court acknowledged an individual right to bear arms, and it opened the door for these challenges to the Chicago regulation.
     
  2. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,649
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    This is more than what it seems. The basic issue is whether a municipality has the right to enact an ordinance contravening the Constitution.

    What would happen if the city fathers decided to invoke an ordinace providing racial segregation? This would also be unconstitutional. Same crap, different shovel.

    I don't understand how that law stood for so long, and New York is another example.

    We will watch with interest.

    HM
     
  3. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    It may all come down to "State Rights".....

    Which was a major cause of our only Civil War.

    Here we go again.

    Curt
     
  4. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    As I understand it, the question is one of incorporation, that is, has the second ammendment been incorporated into the states at state level. As written, the bill of rights applied only to the federal government, not the states. Over the years the rest of the bill of rights has, via court cases, been pretty much incorporated into the states. The second ammendment however, has not formally been incorporated. Thus the question is, can a state or local government make law that contravenes the second ammendment. This is a landmark case because it will set precedent from the SCOTUS itself and make it CLEAR where the second ammendment stands in this country.
     
  5. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,984
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    My limited understanding of the Constitution is as a state you can't lessen its meaning(by state laws)but you can make it stronger!

    WA state has its own State Constitution, and there are other state that have done the same. The only way a state can have one is it takes the wording of the Original Document and reinforce it with "stronger english"

    The Founders were a LOT smarter then any that have come after them!

    The simple will always confound the educated! Especially the present generation and those in power!
     
  6. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but I would think the 14th amendment would cover this case.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

    My passport says I'm a citizen of the United States and the IRS collects taxes from me for being a US citizen. The 2nd sentence in Section 1 or the 14th amendment says - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

    I guess the question then is whether the 2nd amendment is an individual right. What would happen if Chicago decided to ignore the 1st amendment - freedom of speech? I guess if they can ignore the 2nd amendment I'm sure they will soon ignore the 1st and the rest.
     
  7. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    "I guess the question then is whether the 2nd amendment is an individual right."

    Amendment II - "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"

    Looks like a _right_ to me,,,,even says so right there....
     
  8. JACK

    JACK Well-Known Member Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    14,742
    Location:
    NW Wisconsin
    It will be a 5 to 4 decision.
     
  9. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,649
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    The folks in that area who stand to profit from continued crimes against persons and property (lawyers, judges, corrections people, liberal pukes, and God knows who else) will be on the gun control side.

    HM
     
  10. Bushmaster1313

    Bushmaster1313 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,605
    Bisi:

    The Heller case decided it is an individual right.

    Issue is whether it applies to states under the 14th.

    It should because 14th was established to protect freed slaves from the states and one of the ways the states kept the freed slaves down was to deprive them of guns.

    Question is whether any of the Liberal pukes will fess up to this. They should, because if gun rights do not apply to the states, abortion rights certainly do not.

    Note, the Dred Scot decision says that the progeny of slaves cannot be citizens because then they would be entitled to guns.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.