Gun control or not, we have the right to be armed.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

If analyzed closely, the second amendment gives the federal government two options when it comes to the laws regarding firearms and other weapons. The federal government may either allow the citizens to privately arm themselves, or it must arm them. Either way, denying citizens a weapon which is comparable to that used by an infantry soldier is in direct violation of the second amendment.

The second amendment of the US constitution states:

"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."

If broken down, the amendment is quite clear on it's intention.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a militia as follows:

"1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service" Link.

It also defines regulated as:

"1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the="" industries="" of="" a="" country="">

2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one="" s="" habits="">

3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the="" pressure="" of="" a="" tire="">" Link.

The first few words of the amendment clearly refer to a group of orderly, under the control of law (i.e. law abiding), citizens who are able to perform military duties in extreme or emergency situations.The reference to "the people" in the amendment would imply that all citizens who fall into this classification were included under this amendment.

The next phrase states, "being necessary to the security of a free State". This clearly expresses that the previously mentioned militia is a necessary part of national security, thus required by the constitution.

Finally, the amendment states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". This statement clearly puts restraints on Congress. They cannot pass any law which restricts the possession of a weapon which would be used by the referenced militia.

The amendment, however, makes no mention of the sale, transfer, or manufacture of weapons, Thus, government in certain instances could control these aspects of citizen weaponry. Additionally, according to this amendment, the government could control weapons to those who cannot be part of a militia. These would include those who could not participate in military activities (i.e. children), or those not under control of law (i.e. felons).

With this understanding, this leaves the legislature two options on the regulation of weapons.

The first option is to allow the citizenry to arm themselves at will with privately owned arms. The right to keep and bear arms is not infringed and a militia could be organized if necessary.

The second option is for the government to outlaw the sale and transfer of arms. However, in doing this it is still bound by the militia clause to arm the citizenry since the militia is necessary for national security and required by the constitution. Therefore, it would be constitutionally required to issue each law-abiding citizen of age a weapon comparable to those issued to the military infantry. Due to the RTKBA clause, these weapons could never be recalled once issued since there is no provision to revoke the right to possess these weapons.

The ultimate conclusion is that the populous is to be armed with weapons comparable to those used by a standard foot soldier, otherwise the law is in direct violation of the constitution.</regulate></regulate></regulate>

[Photoguy67]

You are preaching to the choir. now go make the government understand that.

[Trekbike]

Your comments on the government arming the people reminded me of some things that Obama said before the election. Below are some things to think about. Obama's words are in red text, some comments I found on the internet are in black, my comments are in blue.

On July 2, 2008, Barack Obama announced: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.â€<O:p

Comments on his quote above.

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force:

• What sort of people would be in this paramilitary force? <O:pWhat sort of weapons would they have?
  
• <O:pWho would command them? <O:p<LI style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3" class=MsoNormal>Would they be subordinate to the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> military? <O:p<LI style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3" class=MsoNormal>Would they be subordinate to the police? <LI style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3" class=MsoNormal><O:pWhat would be the purpose of this paramilitary force? <O:p
  
• What would it do? <O:p
  

And, what are Obama’s “national security objectives?â€<O:p

Michelle Obama lifts back the curtain hiding Barack’s plans for a new order:<O:p

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.â€

<O:p

Starting to sound similar to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Germany'</st1:country-region>s SS?

<O:p<O:p

One thought; the regular military protects the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> from other countries, Obama’s militia protects the government from the people. No dissention will be tolerated and the militia will keep the people in check. Of course for that to be truly effective, they must first disarm the people.

[Guest HexHead]

Problem with using the "militia" definition as to who should be armed were the age limits. Should only men aged 19-45 be allowed to own guns then?

Might be fine for you, but it would suck for me.

[DaveTN]

You are correct. We should have a right to be armed and protect ourselves. But if you tie that right to the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment you have lost before you ever get started.

[trblmkr13]

A well armed militia should have a few Machine Guns that where made before '86 kinda hard to fight a war with oly semi-auto's

[Guest jackdm3]

On July 2, 2008, Barack Obama announced: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

I think that's what we call a "police force", if you simplify the words.

[JayC]

I'm sorry but you're looking at the keep part of the 2nd amendment wrong. Keep is ownership, and part of ownership is the ability to sell and purchase, and that right shall not be infringed.

Also, keep in mind that the 2nd amendment doesn't grant us a right, it prohibits the government from regulating a god given right. We're born with the right of freedom, with the right to protect and govern ourselves... The Constitution doesn't grant us those rights, it's a list of rules the Government shall not violate of god given rights.

Also, please point out exactly where the Constitution allows the governing of sales, transfers and making of weapons? See that is the fallacy of your argument... You read the 2nd, but failed to read two other very important amendments...

Lets start with the 10th:

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 unless the Constitution states somewhere they have the power to regulate the sale, transfer or manufacture of weapons, the right to regulate those things was passed to the states in the 10th Amendment. One could make the arguement that the 2nd amendment is a restriction not only on the Federal government but also on the State governments as well, since unlike the 1st Amendment, which restricts Congress from making a law, the 2nd Amendment states "the peoples' right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed it appears that under the 10th amendment that is a protection passed to 'the people' and not the States.

Then we have the 14th Amendment, which further restricted the ability of the States...

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 laws.

This amendment basically prohibited states from that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... This is a big Amendment and even though the passage of this amendment is marred by questions of being legal, after 150 years it's unlikely we could ever win that argument.

So, this amendment passes the restrictions of the federal constitution down onto the states, which means the states loose the ability to prohibit keeping and bearing of arms. Since that is a right immunity protected by the federal constitution....

If we followed the Constitution to the letter today, neither the States nor the Federal government would be allowed to abridge the ownership, carrying, sale, transfer, or making of firearms and ammunition without having a trial where your rights are abridged. Anything less than that violates our god given freedom and right to protect ourselves and the Constitution of the US IMHO.

Edited December 21, 2009 by JayC

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Problem with using the "militia" definition as to who should be armed were the age limits. Should only men aged 19-45 be allowed to own guns then?

Might be fine for you, but it would suck for me.

I don't agree with that sentiment at all, I am simply making the argument that barring citizens from arming themselves with "military style" rifles is indeed unconstitutional even if you make the "militia" argument

I'm sorry but you're looking at the keep part of the 2nd amendment wrong. Keep is ownership, and part of ownership is the ability to sell and purchase, and that right shall not be infringed.

Also, keep in mind that the 2nd amendment doesn't grant us a right, it prohibits the government from regulating a god given right. We're born with the right of freedom, with the right to protect and govern ourselves... The Constitution doesn't grant us those rights, it's a list of rules the Government shall not violate of god given rights.

Also, please point out exactly where the Constitution allows the governing of sales, transfers and making of weapons? See that is the fallacy of your argument... You read the 2nd, but failed to read two other very important amendments...

Lets start with the 10th:

So unless the Constitution states somewhere they have the power to regulate the sale, transfer or manufacture of weapons, the right to regulate those things was passed to the states in the 10th Amendment. One could make the arguement that the 2nd amendment is a restriction not only on the Federal government but also on the State governments as well, since unlike the 1st Amendment, which restricts Congress from making a law, the 2nd Amendment states "the peoples' right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed it appears that under the 10th amendment that is a protection passed to 'the people' and not the States.

Then we have the 14th Amendment, which further restricted the ability of the States...

This amendment basically prohibited states from that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... This is a big Amendment and even though the passage of this amendment is marred by questions of being legal, after 150 years it's unlikely we could ever win that argument.

So, this amendment passes the restrictions of the federal constitution down onto the states, which means the states loose the ability to prohibit keeping and bearing of arms. Since that is a right immunity protected by the federal constitution....

If we followed the Constitution to the letter today, neither the States nor the Federal government would be allowed to abridge the ownership, carrying, sale, transfer, or making of firearms and ammunition without having a trial where your rights are abridged. Anything less than that violates our god given freedom and right to protect ourselves and the Constitution of the US IMHO.

JayC, I don't disagree with you, but you fail to see my argument. My argument was against those who see it as constitutional to ban "military style" weapons and those who use the "militia" clause to justify gun control. My argument was based solely on the analysis of the second amendment, thus did not include the other amendments. I did not ignore them, they were simply not the scope of the argument.

Don't get me wrong. I am NOT advocating the government outlaw private ownership and start issuing guns. I am simply arguing that you cannot use the militia clause to justify gun control because it encourages quite the opposite.

[DaveTN]

But states do not claim states rights as far as freedom of speech. They will about guns. Depending on how the SCOTUS rules on the Chicago case; you may see Illinois do it. They may rule that cities can’t ban ownership of handguns, but they are not going to rule that you have a right to bear arms. Illinois will defy it and I suspect Tennessee would also.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

On July 2, 2008, Barack Obama announced: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.â€

I think that's what we call a "police force", if you simplify the words.

I call it "Brown Shirts". Think Black Panthers, or go back to pre WWII nazi Germany. He was talking about disarming the populace and controlling us

with force, if necessary.

[DaveTN]

I think that's what we call a "police force", if you simplify the words.

No, a Police Force does not answer to the President. He wants a force that he is the Commander of, and has control over. Governors, State Police, and local Police are not under his control.

[mcurrier]

I don't agree with that sentiment at all, I am simply making the argument that barring citizens from arming themselves with "military style" rifles is indeed unconstitutional even if you make the "militia" argument.

JayC, I don't disagree with you, but you fail to see my argument. My argument was against those who see it as constitutional to ban "military style" weapons and those who use the "militia" clause to justify gun control.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, civilians owned better quality firearms than the military did. Firearms were not mass produced and the better ones were made by master craftsmen. Wealthy people could afford a custom quality firearm. Armies could not. A custom made and privately commissioned firearm was much more accurate and better quality than what the general military was using, especially in the Revolutionary War. Not much difference in the Civil War when comparing quality between private firearms and those made for the soldiers. A private soldier or mercenary could easily be better equipped than government soldiers.

It was not until after WWII, Korea and Vietnam that government issued firearms exceeded the functionality of those available to the common citizen. If you have enough $ you can still buy plenty of different firearms that equal or exceed the quality of U.S. Military grade weapons. They can't give every soldier a $4,500 firearm.

Sure, we can't buy stuff like Stinger missiles, or nukes, but the private citizen has every right to own the best quality firearm that he can afford, even if the military can't afford it. And if it happens to be better quality or function better, them's the breaks.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Sure, we can't buy stuff like Stinger missiles, or nukes, but the private citizen has every right to own the best quality firearm that he can afford, even if the military can't afford it. And if it happens to be better quality or function better, them's the breaks.

Well said.

[JayC]

Well to a certain point... We can't buy full autos made after 1986... So M4's, H&K 416's, full auto FN SCAR's, M249's etc are all off limits. All the modern weapons that an infantry solider carries today are basically off limits to the general public no matter how much money you have... The few full automatic weapons available are super expensive and based off of 30+ year old weapons technology.

So the GCA of 68 and the 1986 ban have pretty much eliminated the average citizen from owning the basic weapon of our (or any other) military for the last 24 years, and made it very hard to get your hands on for the last 70+ years.

Both the GCA of 34/68 and the 1986 amendment are unconstitutional IMHO for sure the 1986 amendment is when you consider the Hellar ruling.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, civilians owned better quality firearms than the military did. Firearms were not mass produced and the better ones were made by master craftsmen. Wealthy people could afford a custom quality firearm. Armies could not. A custom made and privately commissioned firearm was much more accurate and better quality than what the general military was using, especially in the Revolutionary War. Not much difference in the Civil War when comparing quality between private firearms and those made for the soldiers. A private soldier or mercenary could easily be better equipped than government soldiers.

It was not until after WWII, Korea and Vietnam that government issued firearms exceeded the functionality of those available to the common citizen. If you have enough $ you can still buy plenty of different firearms that equal or exceed the quality of U.S. Military grade weapons. They can't give every soldier a $4,500 firearm.

Sure, we can't buy stuff like Stinger missiles, or nukes, but the private citizen has every right to own the best quality firearm that he can afford, even if the military can't afford it. And if it happens to be better quality or function better, them's the breaks.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well to a certain point... We can't buy full autos made after 1986... So M4's, H&K 416's, full auto FN SCAR's, M249's etc are all off limits. All the modern weapons that an infantry solider carries today are basically off limits to the general public no matter how much money you have... The few full automatic weapons available are super expensive and based off of 30+ year old weapons technology.

So the GCA of 68 and the 1986 ban have pretty much eliminated the average citizen from owning the basic weapon of our (or any other) military for the last 24 years, and made it very hard to get your hands on for the last 70+ years.

Both the GCA of 34/68 and the 1986 amendment are unconstitutional IMHO for sure the 1986 amendment is when you consider the Hellar ruling.

That's the way I see it, too. And furthermore, the Instant checks should

undo the GCA of 34/68 and the 1986 law. I thought it was already that if you were a criminal, you couldn't own a firearm of any type. Those acts are further restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

[gotigers]

two things are up to interpretation

1. "Well regulated": What does this mean. How regulated? Regulated by the Fed Gov, Local Gov or by a chosen leader of that group?

2. "Militia": Is militia defined as the National Guard, loosely formed armed group or simply an armed citizen population.

I dont believe our forefathers ment a mob (well regulated), so that throws out loosely formed group. 10th Amendment says it is not the Fed gov.

2nd Amendment + 10th Amendment = well regulated maitia is an armed civilian population (not regulated by the federal gov) that organizes to defend itself against opression of any kind. This seperation of the federal gov from the people was created to give a layer of protection to the people from an opressive federal gov.

The libs define Well regulated militias as a Fed gov run National Guard. Thus, no allowance for individual ownership. They forget about the 10th amendment.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

two things are up to interpretation

1. "Well regulated": What does this mean. How regulated? Regulated by the Fed Gov, Local Gov or by a chosen leader of that group?

2. "Militia": Is militia defined as the National Guard, loosely formed armed group or simply an armed citizen population.

I dont believe our forefathers ment a mob (well regulated), so that throws out loosely formed group. 10th Amendment says it is not the Fed gov.

2nd Amendment + 10th Amendment = well regulated maitia is an armed civilian population (not regulated by the federal gov) that organizes to defend itself against opression of any kind. This seperation of the federal gov from the people was created to give a layer of protection to the people from an opressive federal gov.

The libs define Well regulated militias as a Fed gov run National Guard. Thus, no allowance for individual ownership. They forget about the 10th amendment.

I would see "well regulated" meaning if a state or community had a call to arms, those who showed up and reported to the state or community. E.g. the governor of a state could call upon law-abiding able-bodied citizens in a time of crisis, and those who showed up would report to the state, and thus take orders from the state. All this of course being voluntary. It's not a mob, because those who were to commit crimes (such as murder) would still be held accountable for their actions, as any civilian criminal is. However, such a gathering is not a professional military, mandatory, or comprised of professional soldiers, but rather volunteer citizens. This would also differ from the National Guard in that you would be held under civilian law, so UCMJ provisions, such as regulations regarding desertion and the like, would not be applicable.

It wouldn't be the most organized or graceful force, but its not supposed to be. It's supposed to be our last line of defense.

That's my interpretation anyway.

[gotigers]

Exactly. The 10th amendment removes the fed gov from this and puts it on the "States respectively, or to the people". This was done to protect us from the fed gov if it were to ever become opressive. 10th full text: "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."

The 2nd amendment explicitly does NOT give regulation of fire arms or militia to the fed gov. 2nd full text: "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." Thus the 10th takes effect. The 2nd explicitly specifies "the right of the People....". So, i agree with you that a local gov should be the organizing entity, but the People have the right to defend themselves without any government entity.

Edited December 23, 2009 by gotigers

[macville]

two things are up to interpretation

1. "Well regulated": What does this mean. How regulated? Regulated by the Fed Gov, Local Gov or by a chosen leader of that group?

2. "Militia": Is militia defined as the National Guard, loosely formed armed group or simply an armed citizen population.

I dont believe our forefathers ment a mob (well regulated), so that throws out loosely formed group. 10th Amendment says it is not the Fed gov.

Try this...here's what was originally written for the 2d amendment. I think it's QUITE clear what they meant (notice what was dropped and what was kept.) "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

If you look at this link (Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) under the "Conflict and compromise in Congress, the Bill of Rights" you'll see that what they mean was that having and bearing arms AND having a regulated militia were BOTH protected as a right. Basically, they said you can keep and carry arms and be part of a militia as it's a right. People who don't take the wording at face value just don't want us to have any gun rights. It's that simple.

Matthew

[JayC]

I think one can argue that the 10th amendment also removes the ability for the state to regulate firearms as well.. Since the right states 'the People' and not 'the States'... I'm not sure anybody has argued that line of thought in front of SCOTUS yet.

Exactly. The 10th amendment removes the fed gov from this and puts it on the "States respectively, or to the people". This was done to protect us from the fed gov if it were to ever become opressive. 10th full text: "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."

The 2nd amendment explicitly does NOT give regulation of fire arms or militia to the fed gov. 2nd full text: "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." Thus the 10th takes effect. The 2nd explicitly specifies "the right of the People....". So, i agree with you that a local gov should be the organizing entity, but the People have the right to defend themselves without any government entity.

[DaveTN]

I think one can argue that the 10th amendment also removes the ability for the state to regulate firearms as well.. Since the right states 'the People' and not 'the States'... I'm not sure anybody has argued that line of thought in front of SCOTUS yet.

It does not matter if you argue the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> or the 10<SUP>th</SUP>. What you are wanting is for the SCOTUS to rule that you have both the right to keep arms and the right to bear them. It ain’t going to happen; states will refuse to comply.

[JayC]

It does not matter if you argue the 2^nd or the 10^th. What you are wanting is for the SCOTUS to rule that you have both the right to keep arms and the right to bear them. It ain’t going to happen; states will refuse to comply.

Dave,

I agree that one ruling from SCOTUS won't solve 100+ years of poorly crafted (and in many cases unconstitutional) firearm laws...

I also agree that in all likelihood I won't live long enough to see this type of ruling come from SCOTUS, Hellar was a perfect chance and they hedged their bets on that ruling.

But, can you give me an example of where SCOTUS ruled something unconstitutional and the states didn't comply in fairly short order? Every case I can think of from the mid-1900's would appear to support the idea states generally fall in line with SCOTUS rulings... Right or wrong.

[DaveTN]

Dave,

I agree that one ruling from SCOTUS won't solve 100+ years of poorly crafted (and in many cases unconstitutional) firearm laws...

I also agree that in all likelihood I won't live long enough to see this type of ruling come from SCOTUS, Hellar was a perfect chance and they hedged their bets on that ruling.

But, can you give me an example of where SCOTUS ruled something unconstitutional and the states didn't comply in fairly short order? Every case I can think of from the mid-1900's would appear to support the idea states generally fall in line with SCOTUS rulings... Right or wrong.

Give me an example of a case that could impact the states anywhere close to this.

This is law enforcement and crime. That is the responsibility of the states. You may disagree that gun control impacts crime; but almost every state agrees that it does.

You are correct; the SCOTUS had the perfect opportunity in Heller to end this controversy. As some of us predicted; they choose not to. And they aren’t going to in the Illinois case either; they are going to address the Chicago handgun ban, and will leave the Illinois ban on carry up to the state.

They have ruled that you have a right to own guns; but you do not have a right to carry. That is covered by state law. Nothing is going to change that; its States Rights.

They did what they did in Heller because while they believe that it’s up to the states to control gun laws, they don’t want to allow a state to ban the ownership of guns. If they had ruled that gun ownership is not a right, I believe, and I think they believe, states like California would ban gun ownership period.

The pro gun people want to call Heller a win because the SCOTUS recognized gun ownership as a right and the Anti gun people call it a win because they left States Rights to control intact. Nothing changed.

Edit....

But, can you give me an example of where SCOTUS ruled something unconstitutional and the states didn't comply in fairly short order? Every case I can think of from the mid-1900's would appear to support the idea states generally fall in line with SCOTUS rulings... Right or wrong.

Yes… Heller. Daley told them right off the bat to go pound sand; the Chicago gun ban was staying. It wasn’t until later that it was determined that it didn’t apply to Chicago.

Edited December 24, 2009 by DaveTN

[JayC]

Well, I'd point to the end of School Segregation as an example of a very unpopular SCOTUS ruling at the time... Much less popular than the notion that everybody has a right to carry a firearm for protection is today.

Within 15 years or so years after that ruling, SCOTUS ruled on forced busing which was implemented in short order (also VERY unpopular at the time).

The taking away of these rights took a long time to do, it's going to take a long time to clean up.... If it ever can be cleaned up.

Keep in mind that SCOTUS has over the course of the last 100 years or so changed their minds on a lot of topics... They upheld a number of jim crowe laws for the better part of 100 years and then suddenly started to over rule the entire process of segregation in a short 15-18 years.

I'm not against gun control, the states and federal government should be allowed to abridge the rights of citizens convicted of a serious crime... Those laws are already in place if you're a felon you can't own or carry firearms everything we do beyond laws meant to limit ownership by criminals and others who have been to court and had their rights restricted via due process is a complete waste and does little to stop crime and a lot to help it. But that must be restricted to only those who have had their rights restricted via due process not because somebody MIGHT commit a crime in the future.

The real question Dave is what do you believe in? Do you believe that all humans are granted by their creator certain inalienable rights? That among those rights are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property? That those rights exist no matter where you live, or what form of government you're born into? If you don't believe in those rights on a fundamental level, you're never going to be convinced what the government is and has been doing is wrong.

If we are already to a point that our current form of government has turned into a "Tyranny of the majority" (referred to as the 'violence of majority faction' in Federalist 10) and these issues can't be fixed within the system... where does that leave us? I'd like to still believe there is hope this can be addressed through the system, because if enough people loose that hope the alternative is a very scary place.

Give me an example of a case that could impact the states anywhere close to this.

This is law enforcement and crime. That is the responsibility of the states. You may disagree that gun control impacts crime; but almost every state agrees that it does.

You are correct; the SCOTUS had the perfect opportunity in Heller to end this controversy. As some of us predicted; they choose not to. And they aren’t going to in the Illinois case either; they are going to address the Chicago handgun ban, and will leave the Illinois ban on carry up to the state.

They have ruled that you have a right to own guns; but you do not have a right to carry. That is covered by state law. Nothing is going to change that; its States Rights.

They did what they did in Heller because while they believe that it’s up to the states to control gun laws, they don’t want to allow a state to ban the ownership of guns. If they had ruled that gun ownership is not a right, I believe, and I think they believe, states like California would ban gun ownership period.

The pro gun people want to call Heller a win because the SCOTUS recognized gun ownership as a right and the Anti gun people call it a win because they left States Rights to control intact. Nothing changed.

Edit....

Yes… Heller. Daley told them right off the bat to go pound sand; the Chicago gun ban was staying. It wasn’t until later that it was determined that it didn’t apply to Chicago.