SCOTUS to look at local gun control laws

[G27]

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?

This is precisely why I said it's a slippery slope - if the SCOTUS decides that the gun bans are illegal in Chicago and the local gov't of Chicago decides to thumb their nose at the SCOTUS' decision, what happens?

I doubt we see Federal troops marching in.

I guess there could be some high dollar lawsuits based on civil rights violations...

Just another reminder of how happy I am to live in the South.

[Guest marine77]

They also have to pay a tax every year. And if by some mistake they

miss the deadline, guess what? It's not a registered gun any more, illegal

to have anymore. You either have to do all the work again to register, if

you can, or sell it and get a new gun to register.

[Guest PapaB]

They also have to pay a tax every year. And if by some mistake they

miss the deadline, guess what? It's not a registered gun any more, illegal

to have anymore. You either have to do all the work again to register, if

you can, or sell it and get a new gun to register.

Actually if you miss the deadline, your gun (or guns) can no longer be registered in Chicago by anyone. They must be destroyed or removed from the city limits.

[raydog1]

CNN talking head this AM believes the court will side AGAINST gun control. He doesn't believe Sotomayor will make one bit of difference. The host was a little taken aback by this and they didn't have a gun control advocate for rebuttal (host wasnt' up to the challenge). I don't think they're ever going to invite that guy back.

[G27]

Well, I mean, if we look at civil liberties, there's no reason states SHOULD be allowed to reduce them. These are inalienable rights, correct? The more I think about it, the less it seems to be a State's rights issue after all.

IANAL, but this one seems like a no-brainer.

[DaveTN]

Well, I mean, if we look at civil liberties, there's no reason states SHOULD be allowed to reduce them. These are inalienable rights, correct? The more I think about it, the less it seems to be a State's rights issue after all.

IANAL, but this one seems like a no-brainer.

I’m not a lawyer either, but most of the Federal Districts have ruled that the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment is not an individual right. It was not until Heller that the SCOTUS ruled that it was an individual right……..with some pretty big exceptions. You have the right to keep arms but local laws will decide how you can bear them. Therefore I content that you do not have a right to bear arms. There are no carry permits in Illinois; you can’t carry. And that is the way it will stay until the state decides to give them the privilege of bearing arms; just as Tennessee has done.

<O:p</O:p

Remove all emotion from the issue and see if you could argue either side. I can. Sure I would like to see the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment recognized as an individual right and everyone across the country allowed to slap on a gun and carry anywhere they like. But it isn’t going to happen.

<O:p</O:p

Mayor Daley and the Chief of Police of Chicago are charged with controlling crime in Chicago. The majority of the citizens of Chicago (think Memphis) agree with the handgun ban, the state agrees with it and the 7<SUP>th</SUP> Federal District agrees with it. Therefore they claim States Rights.

<O:p</O:p

As you said, what is going to happen when Daley thumbs his nose at the Feds?... Nothing.

They can file all the civil rights violation cases they like. But until the SCOUTS rules you have a right to bear arms, they won’t go anywhere.

<O:p</O:p

It will be an interesting case, but when it is all said and done I’m pretty sure you still won’t be able to carry in the state of Illinois and I doubt you will be able to legally own a handgun in Chicago. But let’s hope I am wrong.

<O:p</O:p

Also, I would feel better about this case if it was somewhere besides Chicago. Daley runs Chicago and what he says goes. He has the support of the people and I don’t think the Feds want to get in a pissing contest with him.

[Guest PapaB]

This is my simplistic take on the subject.

The right to protect yourself, your family and your property is granted by the creator, making it inalienable. The right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the right to self-protection. Our Constitution doesn't grant that right, it merely acknowledges it. No government entity has the authority to infringe an inalienable right.

The Supreme Court should, but probably won't, define the word 'infringe' and strike down any and all laws that violate that definition. When a State is formed for the purpose of joining the U.S. it must create a State Constitution which is republican, and doesn't violate the Federal Constitution. I believe this requires they not infringe on inalienable rights and is the real crux of what the Supreme Court needs to address.

[Guest HexHead]

I expect the SCOTUS will find pretty much just like they did in the Heller case, that a State cannot prevent you from owning a handgun, as long as you meet the criteria of the NICS system. Just like with Heller however, that doesn't mean they have to allow you to carry it, nor will it prevent them from making you jump through all kinds of hoops and make it as difficult as possibly, like DC has.

Of course, those "hoops" may be addressed later on by the SCOTUS.