SCOTUS to look at local gun control laws

[G27]

The Associated Press: High court to look at local gun control laws

[Guest canynracer]

here we go again

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Hopefully this will turn out well and establish the precedent that local government can't simply ignore the 2A when it suits them.

[DaveTN]

The court answered the question in Heller that you have a right to keep arms, but you do not have a right to bear arms. Nothing will be different here.

<O:p</O:p

It should be interesting though on the Chicago handgun ban. I doubt Daley will comply and Illinois will back him by claiming States Rights.

<O:p</O:p

[E4 No More]

Humm, doesn't "keep" and "bear" go hand-in-hand in the Constitution?

[G27]

It's a double-edged sword, imo. If they say the US Constitution supersedes local government, we get less gun laws, but this also further weakens state's rights...

[Guest PapaB]

One of the Heller case lawyers is involved in this too. He's on Glenn Beck's show today.

[USMCJG]

Early next year the Supreme court will determine whether or not the handgun ban in Chicago is Constitutional. Here is the news article: Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look - Yahoo! News

[Guest redbarron06]

Actually it has no effect what so ever on States Rights beacuse the state was never given this right

According to 10A

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So being that 2A covers Arms it was reserved to the federal govt now under 14A

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 laws.

So what any state/city/county that has any sort of gun ban is doing is depriving the citizens of the rights assured in 2A by the Constitution.

So between 10A and 14A any state law that tell you what typed of firearm you can or can not have is a violation of the constitution. But we will see if SCOTUS can read the very document they swore to uphold.

[Guest Gun Geek]

Here is another bit of info on this

NRA-ILA :: Supreme Court to Hear <EM>McDonald v. Chicago</EM> --Monumental Second Amendment Case

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association applauds the Supreme Court's decision, announced today, to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States. The decision to hear the case, which will be argued later this year or early next year, gives Second Amendment advocates across America hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.

"The Second Amendment applies to every citizen, not just to those living in federal enclaves like Washington D.C. In the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what most Americans have known all along -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and that it applies to all Americans. The government should respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens throughout our country, regardless of where they live, and NRA is determined to make sure that happens," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.

In the June ruling that the Supreme Court will now review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. That opinion left in place the current ban on the possession of handguns in Chicago.

However, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly claimed it was bound by precedent from 19th century Supreme Court decisions in failing to incorporate the Second Amendment. Many legal scholars believe that the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the earlier Ninth Circuit panel decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To the contrary, a proper incorporation analysis supports application of the Second Amendment to the States.

"It is an injustice that the residents of Chicago continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied," said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. "It’s time that the fundamental right of self-defense is respected by every jurisdiction throughout the country. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will find, once and for all, that all law-abiding Americans have the God-given, constitutionally-protected right of self-defense, no matter what city, county or state they call home."

[Guest cowboy20th]

Thats right states don't have to honor our rights as citizens! No state should have to follow the constitution! The constitution is Federal Law not state law! They can't.... wait what was that thing the ATF just told us about our laws.... something like their federal laws trump our state laws...

[DaveTN]

This has everything to do with States Rights. The reason this is going to the SCOTUS is that the 7<SUP>th</SUP> and the 9<SUP>th</SUP> have disagreed on if the 14th incorporates the 2<SUP>nd</SUP>.

[G27]

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/2nd-amendment-issues/28103-scotus-look-local-gun-control-laws.html

[Fallguy]

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/2nd-amendment-issues/28103-scotus-look-local-gun-control-laws.html

Threads merged

[Guest redbarron06]

This has everything to do with States Rights. The reason this is going to the SCOTUS is that the 7<SUP>th</SUP> and the 9<SUP>th</SUP> have disagreed on if the 14th incorporates the 2<SUP>nd</SUP>.

Firearms ownership is not states rights. The states do not get the ability to deny rights that are guarenteed in COTUS. Now just because the courts cant agree does not mean that a sate can take your rights away from you when guarentee by the constitution.

[Mike.357]

unless the Supreme Court confirms the Chicago gun laws their decision will be ignored anyway.

What did Heller actually change? Are people legally possessing loaded firearms in their homes in DC?

Just saying, if TN passed a law banning possession of firearms does it matter if there is a 2a?

So what is the point of all this?

[eapking]

Localities are ignoring Heller because DC has a special federal status that they think does not apply to them. Plus they have the attitude of: 'We'll test the waters. Go ahead, try to sue me'.

A victory over Chicago will be another step in the right direction.

[Oh Shoot]

...

What did Heller actually change? Are people legally possessing loaded firearms in their homes in DC?

...

As I understand it, yes they are, Mike.

The decision also struck down the part of the law that firearms had to be stored unloaded and disassembled/trigger lock.

They're supposed to even have an actual gun shop in DC at some point!

- OS

[Guest redbarron06]

unless the Supreme Court confirms the Chicago gun laws their decision will be ignored anyway.

What did Heller actually change? Are people legally possessing loaded firearms in their homes in DC?

Just saying, if TN passed a law banning possession of firearms does it matter if there is a 2a?

So what is the point of all this?

That is teh exact problem we have with congress now. They pass laws knowing that they will never stand up to Congressional authority but they pass them knowing that until somebody has the time, money, and energy to fight it all the way to SCOTUS then it will be the law.

[G27]

unless the Supreme Court confirms the Chicago gun laws their decision will be ignored anyway.

What did Heller actually change? Are people legally possessing loaded firearms in their homes in DC?

Just saying, if TN passed a law banning possession of firearms does it matter if there is a 2a?

So what is the point of all this?

Well, Heller changed a lot, from a paper standpoint. Until there's an FFL in DC, it will be hard to see the impact, but that will happen soon enough.

[Oh Shoot]

Well, Heller changed a lot, from a paper standpoint. Until there's an FFL in DC, it will be hard to see the impact, but that will happen soon enough.

There IS an FFL in DC. Shortly after the decision one was put in place.

But it's just a guy, not a gun shop. Guns are shipped to him and he does the paperwork, or holds it till owner registers it or whatever is required.

They still have to go through some registration hoops there through the police, though.

- OS

[DaveTN]

Firearms ownership is not states rights.

Ownership isn’t, but the right to bear arms clearly is. States make the laws on when and where you can carry, which in Illinois is nowhere.

The states do not get the ability to deny rights that are guarenteed in COTUS. Now just because the courts cant agree does not mean that a sate can take your rights away from you when guarentee by the constitution.

Absolutely a state can take your rights away from you and you are about to see it happen. Times change and the situation is not what it was 200 years ago. Unless the Feds are going to take over law enforcement in the city of Chicago; they don’t have jack to say about this.

That is teh exact problem we have with congress now. They pass laws knowing that they will never stand up to Congressional authority but they pass them knowing that until somebody has the time, money, and energy to fight it all the way to SCOTUS then it will be the law.

I think what he is saying is that the aftermath will be more interesting than the case. Daley is not going to back down.

[USMCJG]

Ownership isn’t, but the right to bear arms clearly is.

No , it isn't. That doesn't mean that this is not accepted and done regularly, but it is completely unconstitutional.

Absolutely a state can take your rights away from you and you are about to see it happen. Times change and the situation is not what it was 200 years ago. Unless the Feds are going to take over law enforcement in the city of Chicago; they don’t have jack to say about this.

They CAN take away your rights whenever and wherever they want. They can't do it legally or Constitutionally, but they can, and do, do it with stunning regularity and complete disregard for the Constitution and the People.

Unless the Feds are going to take over law enforcement in the city of Chicago; they don’t have jack to say about this.

Actually, neither the city of Chicago, nor the feds, "have jack to say about this". The Constitution speaks very clearly to this matter in the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court does have the legal right to rule on this though, since the inalienable rights of United States citizens are being abridged, and there is only one decision that they could possibly legally make. The Bill of Rights is not subject to the states or the feds. They are both Constitutionally restricted from tampering with them, short of a Constitutional Convention to rewrite them. The feds do not have the legal right to "take over law enforcement in the city of Chicago", they are Constitutionally restricted from doing this. Just as the city of Chicago is Constitutionally restricted from infringing on the Second Amendment rights of it's citizens. Times do change in 200 years, but that doesn't give any government entity the right to suspend or abridge the Constitution. This is why the founding fathers allowed for the possibility of changing the Constitution.Thankfully, they had the foresight to make sure that it would not be a trivial process, subject to the whim of the "rulers of the day", but would require the consent of a large majority of the United States and its citizens to accomplish.

[macville]

Ownership isn’t, but the right to bear arms clearly is. States make the laws on when and where you can carry, which in Illinois is nowhere.

What does the word "keep" mean then?

Matthew

[Oh Shoot]

...

Actually, neither the city of Chicago, nor the feds, "have jack to say about this". The Constitution speaks very clearly to this matter in the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court does have the legal right to rule on this though, since the inalienable rights of United States citizens are being abridged, and there is only one decision that they could possibly legally make. The Bill of Rights is not subject to the states or the feds. They are both Constitutionally restricted from tampering with them, short of a Constitutional Convention to rewrite them. The feds do not have the legal right to "take over law enforcement in the city of Chicago", they are Constitutionally restricted from doing this. Just as the city of Chicago is Constitutionally restricted from infringing on the Second Amendment rights of it's citizens. Times do change in 200 years, but that doesn't give any government entity the right to suspend or abridge the Constitution. This is why the founding fathers allowed for the possibility of changing the Constitution.Thankfully, they had the foresight to make sure that it would not be a trivial process, subject to the whim of the "rulers of the day", but would require the consent of a large majority of the United States and its citizens to accomplish.

Well, those are all noble sentiments, since the fact remains that you can be fined and/or jailed for handgun possession in your home in Chicago (and Oak Park and maybe other 'burbs) just who SHOULD enforce 2A there?

- OS