Saturday, March 6, 2010

The Chicago Gun Ban Case

Supreme Court Appears Ready To Overturn Chicago Gun Ban Ordinance
If the early reports coming out of Washington D.C. are correct, we will not have to listen to the nonsense Mayor Richard Daley has been spinning for years. Mayor Daley has defended the city's handgun ban as being necessary and reasonable. Reasonable? For Whom?

The New American - Partial Victory Could Have Other Implications
So while the anticipated Supreme Court decision may represent a partial victory to some, and an unconstitutional infringement on the powers of state governments to others, the future of gun rights in America generally looks brighter than it did just a few years ago. After all, more and more Americans are beginning to appreciate that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable gift from their Creator which “shall not be infringed” by government. And that is encouraging news. 

The Economist
Mr McDonald’s lawsuit against Chicago’s gun laws reached the Supreme Court this week. It was the moment gun-lovers had been waiting for since 2008, when the court struck down as unconstitutional a similar handgun ban in Washington, DC. By a 5-4 majority, the justices ruled then that the second amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms” applies to individuals, not just members of a militia. 

The question now is whether this right applies only in a federal enclave such as Washington, DC, or nationwide. Judging by the questions the justices threw at Chicago’s lawyer on March 2nd, the answer is “nationwide”.

The first ten amendments to the constitution (the Bill of Rights) originally bound only the federal government. But the rights contained in them, such as free speech, have mostly been applied to the states via the “due process” clause of the 14th amendment. (“Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law…”) This is the most likely way that the court’s slim majority will extend gun rights to the whole country. 

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.
-- 2nd Amendment to The US Constitution


Snarky Basterd said...

It's about friggin' time.

Fredd said...

While I live in the outskirts of Chicago, the gun laws in Illinois in general are extremely restrictive, but are not entirely banned. I have a gun, a .357 Magnum revolver, fully loaded with 6 hollow point rounds, no safety. It's ready to go.

However, the laws restrict its use to self defense within the home only after all other avenues of defense have been exhausted. Or some such similar foolishness. Any other situation in which a scumbag is wasted during a home invasion can warrant murder charges.

I want to see this Chicago decision expanded to the state as well, and apply the 2nd ammendment to The Land of Lincoln, and not just Chicago.

Silverfiddle said...

If they knock down Chicago's ban, it's all over for the gun grabbers.

OD357 said...

Well we certainly can't have Chicago citizens lawfully own guns! Crime may actually go down. Then where would we be?

Grung_e_Gene said...

I don't see how any laws restricting guns can pass the Gun Nut Loving Test.

Where in the Constitution does it say felons can not own guns? Nowhere.

Where in the Constitution does it say someone can not walk down the street with mutliple hidden guns while wearing a ski mask and then walking into a bank? Nowhere

Where in the Constitution does it say a person can not walk down the street with a rifle slung in a tacsling waiting for his neighbor's dog who constantly shits on his lawn? Nowhere.

Silverfiddle said...

False argument, Gene. Natural law has always recognized that someone who breaks the law (a felon) can lose his natural rights.

A strict libertarian would actually agree with your second and third points, but this isn't a libertarian nation.

The body of jurisprudence, rightly or wrongly, recognizes reasonable restrictions on certain liberties for the public welfare.

The Supreme Court has recognized in the DC case what the founders intended: That possessing firearms is a natural right that the federal government cannot take away.

Get over it.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Where in the Constitution does it say a convicted Felon can't own a gun?

Silverfiddle said...

I just explained it in my last post. It's not my fault you can't follow a logical argument. Breaking the law brings bad consequences.

Where in the constitution does it say you can blog? Where does it say you can't drive on a toll road without paying the toll?

Post a Comment