PDA

View Full Version : Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court



AlmostThere
06-03-2009, 10:04 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awIn1M4tWxi8&refer=worldwide


June 2 (Bloomberg) -- A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association.

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitutionís Second Amendment, didnít apply to states and municipalities.

JDiddyGalt
06-03-2009, 11:40 AM
Do 1st amendment rights apply to states and municipalities?

Lars1701a
06-03-2009, 11:43 AM
This should be turned over in the SC.

Rockntractor
06-03-2009, 11:55 AM
This should be turned over in the SC.
Something tells me the supreme court will soon be in obamas pocket. If they don't favor his issues it will be becaues the are racist.

Lars1701a
06-03-2009, 12:15 PM
Something tells me the supreme court will soon be in obamas pocket. If they don't favor his issues it will be becaues the are racist.

I cant see them not striking that law down, I didnt ready the particulars of this case but it sounds much like the one from DC.

Rockntractor
06-03-2009, 12:29 PM
I cant see them not striking that law down, I didnt ready the particulars of this case but it sounds much like the one from DC.
I agree with what you have stated the cases are similer. The court does not have to hear the case. They can ignore it or put it off indefinately. I am not impressed with them recently.

AlmostThere
06-03-2009, 01:35 PM
Interesting article at the NYT about the DC case. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html

This seems so clear cut. What is the appellate court thinking?

Lars1701a
06-03-2009, 02:18 PM
I agree with what you have stated the cases are similer. The court does not have to hear the case. They can ignore it or put it off indefinately. I am not impressed with them recently.

Well the only soft spot is always that 5th justice whats his name (escapes me ATM) No way the Conservtive i.e. smart, morally upstanding justices will vote to uphold the ruling,

AlmostThere
06-03-2009, 02:59 PM
I don't mean to be dense, what exactly is the difference in the law overturned in DC by the SCOTUS and the law upheld in Chicago by the appellate? :confused:

Lars1701a
06-03-2009, 03:04 PM
I don't mean to be dense, what exactly is the difference in the law overturned in DC by the SCOTUS and the law upheld in Chicago by the appellate? :confused:

Dont know myself but it should violate the 2nd

Rockntractor
06-03-2009, 07:09 PM
I don't mean to be dense, what exactly is the difference in the law overturned in DC by the SCOTUS and the law upheld in Chicago by the appellate? :confused:
One was a federally controlled area District of columbia and the other was a city within a state.

Bubba Dawg
06-03-2009, 08:43 PM
I don't mean to be dense, what exactly is the difference in the law overturned in DC by the SCOTUS and the law upheld in Chicago by the appellate? :confused:

I'm not sure if it is a difference in the law, or in the judges. If the three judge panel in Illinois was predisposed to vote against Second Amendment Rights I don't think what the actual law says really matters.

This will have to go to SCOTUS eventually for a lot of locales.

Sonnabend
06-05-2009, 04:46 AM
I don't mean to be dense, what exactly is the difference in the law overturned in DC by the SCOTUS and the law upheld in Chicago by the appellate?


The 10th amendment, does not trump nor replace the 2nd, as laid down in the Heller case.An outright ban on handguns is a violation of the 2nd amendment and the state law can and will in all likelihood be overturned by the U.S.S.C.

Heller in its core definition codified the individual right to keep and bear arms. This will be overturned on appeal.

AlmostThere
06-05-2009, 12:21 PM
One was a federally controlled area District of columbia and the other was a city within a state.

Yeah, but both address the rights of a U.S. citizen within the confines of the United States. What difference could possibly be argued based on whether the citizen lives in DC or Chicago? There is nothing in the 2nd about zip codes. :confused::confused:

PoliCon
06-05-2009, 03:21 PM
Do 1st amendment rights apply to states and municipalities?
not according to Barry's current SCOTUS nominee.

PoliCon
06-05-2009, 03:24 PM
Yeah, but both address the rights of a U.S. citizen within the confines of the United States. What difference could possibly be argued based on whether the citizen lives in DC or Chicago? There is nothing in the 2nd about zip codes. :confused::confused:

The Second amendment is one of the few that has not been argued into incorporation at the state level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) Without an incorporation case - argued before the SCOTUS and won - states and municipalities can ban guns.

Sonnabend
06-05-2009, 09:56 PM
Without an incorporation case - argued before the SCOTUS and won - states and municipalities can ban guns

My guess is that that is coming. The recent events with Texas and other states re the 2nd and the 10th seems to me that a case of this kind is in the works.

Maybe not soon...but it will happen.

PoliCon
06-06-2009, 01:16 AM
My guess is that that is coming. The recent events with Texas and other states re the 2nd and the 10th seems to me that a case of this kind is in the works.

Maybe not soon...but it will happen.

which makes judicial appointments all that much more important.

Rockntractor
06-06-2009, 01:18 AM
Yeah, but both address the rights of a U.S. citizen within the confines of the United States. What difference could possibly be argued based on whether the citizen lives in DC or Chicago? There is nothing in the 2nd about zip codes. :confused::confused:
You tell me but that is why they feel justified in this latest ruling.

Odysseus
06-11-2009, 07:37 AM
You tell me but that is why they feel justified in this latest ruling.

Federal vs. local jurisdiction could be an issue, however, when two circuit courts issue conflicting interpretations of the same law, it has to go before the Supreme Court for resolution, assuming that the entire circuit court doesn't choose to hear the case, which could be the next step. This will probably be heard by SCOTUS in the next session, and if so, Sotomayor's appointment won't make a difference, since she's not replacing someone who was part of the majority in the DC case. If anything, I expect gun-grabbers to do everything within their power to avoid having it go higher.

noonwitch
06-11-2009, 11:53 AM
Whether it's DC, Detroit or Chicago, laws like this will never work to prevent crime. If I live in Detroit, which has a handgun ban, but I really want to buy a gun legally, I'll just use my mom's Grand Rapids address on my id to get that gun. It used to work on car insurance companies, and they have smarter employees than the city of Detroit.


That's just covering legally obtaining a gun. I could buy a shotgun from a pawnshop without a license, I could buy any number of weapons illegally off a gang member, and so on. Sometimes, in the city, you even find guns that were dropped by people running from the police. Once when I lived in Detroit, the cops chased a drug suspect through my yard (he got away), and then asked me to search my yard to see if he dropped any weapons or drugs. He didn't. A TS prostitute once dropped a knife in my yard, though. (S)he came back to ask me if I found it. My neighbor already had found it and decided to keep it, so I told her I never saw it.


I live in Warren, now. The police there don't engage in foot chases that often, they shoot people or taze them. They also taze stuffed panthers.

PoliCon
06-11-2009, 06:59 PM
Whether it's DC, Detroit or Chicago, laws like this will never work to prevent crime. If I live in Detroit, which has a handgun ban, but I really want to buy a gun legally, I'll just use my mom's Grand Rapids address on my id to get that gun. It used to work on car insurance companies, and they have smarter employees than the city of Detroit.


That's just covering legally obtaining a gun. I could buy a shotgun from a pawnshop without a license, I could buy any number of weapons illegally off a gang member, and so on. Sometimes, in the city, you even find guns that were dropped by people running from the police. Once when I lived in Detroit, the cops chased a drug suspect through my yard (he got away), and then asked me to search my yard to see if he dropped any weapons or drugs. He didn't. A TS prostitute once dropped a knife in my yard, though. (S)he came back to ask me if I found it. My neighbor already had found it and decided to keep it, so I told her I never saw it.


I live in Warren, now. The police there don't engage in foot chases that often, they shoot people or taze them. They also taze stuffed panthers.
But these laws are not ultimatly about preventing crime - they're bout protecting the elite from the rest of us.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-11-2009, 10:49 PM
This should be turned over in the SC.


Better hope it gets there before Obama gets his "justices" confirmed

noonwitch
06-12-2009, 11:03 AM
But these laws are not ultimatly about preventing crime - they're bout protecting the elite from the rest of us.


The justification to the people is always that the laws are about preventing crime. That's the official story.

I can understand why Chicago is considering such extreme measures, because of the rate of child murders/gang related violence they've been having. We who lived in Detroit in the 80s remember those tragedies very well. They still are happening, just not in the same numbers that Chicago is experiencing. The temptation to pass a bunch of laws that make it look like someone is doing something about it is strong. The media calls for gun control, and the victims' families make tearful statements on the news and it becomes a very emotional issue.

They can pass all the laws they want, but they are going to be completely unable to enforce them. The issue is violent youth, not gun control.

Odysseus
06-12-2009, 03:50 PM
The justification to the people is always that the laws are about preventing crime. That's the official story.

I can understand why Chicago is considering such extreme measures, because of the rate of child murders/gang related violence they've been having. We who lived in Detroit in the 80s remember those tragedies very well. They still are happening, just not in the same numbers that Chicago is experiencing. The temptation to pass a bunch of laws that make it look like someone is doing something about it is strong. The media calls for gun control, and the victims' families make tearful statements on the news and it becomes a very emotional issue.

They can pass all the laws they want, but they are going to be completely unable to enforce them. The issue is violent youth, not gun control.

The first gun control law in the US, NY's Sullivan Act, was specifically enacted to disarm law-abiding citizens so that criminals could prey on them. Timothy Sullivan was notoriously corrupt state senator and Tammany Hall hack who was bribed by the criminal gangs in Redhook to come up with a law that would disarm the dockworkers that they preyed on. The law had no effect on the increasing rate of gun-related crimes, and is believed to have exacerbated the problem.

AlmostThere
06-13-2009, 02:56 AM
Federal vs. local jurisdiction could be an issue, however, when two circuit courts issue conflicting interpretations of the same law, it has to go before the Supreme Court for resolution, assuming that the entire circuit court doesn't choose to hear the case, which could be the next step. This will probably be heard by SCOTUS in the next session, and if so, Sotomayor's appointment won't make a difference, since she's not replacing someone who was part of the majority in the DC case. If anything, I expect gun-grabbers to do everything within their power to avoid having it go higher.

Is there some state/local law you can cite that has been acknowledged to supersede a constitution right as defined by the SCOTUS? Didn't the D.C. case settle that the 2nd applies to individuals? Are you saying a state can enact a law that directly conflicts with a constitutional right?

Odysseus
06-13-2009, 10:42 AM
Is there some state/local law you can cite that has been acknowledged to supersede a constitution right as defined by the SCOTUS? Didn't the D.C. case settle that the 2nd applies to individuals? Are you saying a state can enact a law that directly conflicts with a constitutional right?

Nope, which is why I think that this law will be struck down on appeal. Under the incorporation doctrine, the states cannot nullify a right that is enumerated (or implied, which is why the left loves to litigate everything at the federal level; By claiming that abortion is a right under the Constitution, they get to nullify the laws in 50 states) in the federal Constitution. Not having read the 2nd Circuit's decision, I can't say what their justification was, but there is no doubt that the Supreme Court had standing in the Washington DC case, as it was federal territory, while they may have tried to make the argument that this was a state or local issue, rather than federal. This is where this gets dicey. On the one hand, the states cannot nullify the federal Constitution. On the other, they do have the right to regulate how those rights are exercised within their jurisdictions. For example, a state or city can regulate or ban concealed carry in certain areas, or throughout its jurisdiction (NY's Sullivan act being the most draconian example), and they can require registration or licensing for tax purposes. Of course, this gets into John Marshall's famous quote about the power to tax being the power to destroy. By imposing onerous regulations or taxes, a state or city can effectively ban guns, even if they remain technically legal. If Chicago's law were struck down tomorrow, the city could still come up with enough hurdles to make gun ownership all but impossible, and many of those hurdles would stand up in court.

Also, be aware that even the Constitution isn't safe from being nullified through other means. If the federal government ratifies a treaty that requires a ban on certain types of guns or regulates their sale or transfer, it falls under the Constitutional authority of congress to pass laws that enforce treaty obligations. The precedent is the Migratory Bird Act, which strictly regulated hunting, and was struck down, and which was followed by the Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada, which contained almost identical provisions, and was upheld. Don't think for a moment that the various EUnichs wouldn't happily sign on to a treaty that extended their gun laws to the US.

My advice is that you invest in some PVC pipe with threaded end caps that can accomodate your guns, a bunch of silica gel moisture absorbing packs and a shovel and start digging, preferable close enough to a large underground metal object that will be the first thing found by a metal detector.