Chicago defies the 2nd Amendment

Chicago defies the 2nd Amendment

This is a discussion on Chicago defies the 2nd Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Friday, November 28, 2008 Chicago defies the 2nd Amendment Since the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to own guns last summer, one municipality after ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 43

Thread: Chicago defies the 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array Pure Kustom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Mesa,Az
    Posts
    1,081

    Chicago defies the 2nd Amendment

    Friday, November 28, 2008

    Chicago defies the 2nd Amendment

    Since the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to own guns last summer, one municipality after another with handgun bans has faced reality. Washington, D.C., which lost the case, changed its law. Morton Grove, Ill., repealed its ban. So did neighboring Wilmette. Likewise for Evanston. Last week, Winnetka followed suit.

    Then there is Chicago, which is being sued for violating the Second Amendment but refuses to confront the possibility that what the Supreme Court said may apply on this side of the Appalachians.

    When it comes to firearms, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is no slave to rationality. "Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?" he demanded after the ruling came down. "Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, where you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets?"

    From listening to him, you might assume that the only places in North America that don't have firefights on a daily basis are cities that outlaw handguns. You might also assume that Chicago is an oasis of concord, rather than the site of 443 homicides last year.

    So it's no surprise that Daley refuses to make the slightest change in the handgun ordinance, preferring to fight the lawsuits filed by the National Rifle Association. He is not impressed that 1) the law almost certainly violates the Constitution, which elected officials are supposed to uphold, and 2) it will cost taxpayers a lot of money to fight lawsuits the city is bound to lose.

    The Chicago ban dates back to 1983—a time when no one had to worry about the forgotten Second Amendment. The ordinance prohibited the possession of all handguns (except those acquired before the law took effect).

    It had no obvious benefits: Homicides climbed in the ensuing years and by 1992 were 41 percent higher than before. But the policy rested undisturbed until last summer, when the Supreme Court ruled that Washington's complete ban on handguns violated the individual right to use arms for self-defense in the home.

    If that logic applies to the D.C. statute, it very likely applies to Chicago's law. The city, however, notes that the nation's capital is a federal enclave, and that the court did not say that states must respect the Second Amendment. That's true. The court's ruling also did not say that China is in Asia, which doesn't make it part of South America.

    Once upon a time, the Bill of Rights restricted only what the federal government could do: States were free to restrict free speech, conduct unreasonable searches, and impose cruel and unusual punishments. But nowadays, the court says that because of the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, states must respect virtually all the rights set out in the Constitution.

    There is no reason to think the justices would exempt the Second Amendment from that rule. Ronald Rotunda, a constitutional scholar at Chapman University law school, thinks the Chicago ban has no more than a one in five chance of surviving court review.

    That might be worth the gamble except for all the money the city is asking to be relieved of. The losing side would not only have to cover the costs of its own lawyers but also pay the winning attorneys. In the D.C. case, the amount has not been settled, but the lawyers who handled the suit asked the court for nearly $3.6 million, while Washington offered some $800,000. So if Daley insists on fighting all the way to the Supreme Court, the total tab will probably run into multiple millions.

    The city says this is not necessarily money that can be saved, since even a revised ordinance could face a court challenge. But sensible changes might deter opponents from pursuing a lawsuit, and if not, at least the new version would stand a good chance of being upheld. Judging from its lawsuit, the NRA is aiming only at eliminating the city's total ban on handguns—which is what the Supreme Court will almost surely demand anyway.

    Daley's recalcitrance may be viscerally satisfying to him and some others, but it doesn't change the choice the city faces. It can change the law now or it can change it later. Later will be a lot more expensive.

    Chicago Defies the Second Amendment: The trouble with the Windy City's handgun ban - Reason Magazine

    How can this guy still be Mayor......The NRA needs to start a major membership drive in Ill and get his ass voted out of office!!!


  2. #2
    VIP Member
    Array srfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    6,868
    Chicago defying the 2AD?

    What's new?
    USAF: Loving Our Obscene Amenities Since 1947

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,071
    Chicago gun ban...wow! No concern for people's rights? Ignoring the SCOTUS decision?
    It's a good thing we don't have to worry about any 'Chicago politicians' now that the election is over.
    We live in interesting times.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  4. #4
    AEA
    AEA is offline
    Member Array AEA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    159
    If they just forget about the Courts BS again and simply cut off Federal Aid to Chicago and to the State of Ill, he may change his tune.......

  5. #5
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Pure Kustom View Post
    Once upon a time, the Bill of Rights restricted only what the federal government could do: States were free to restrict free speech, conduct unreasonable searches, and impose cruel and unusual punishments. But nowadays, the court says that because of the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, states must respect virtually all the rights set out in the Constitution.
    Once upon a time? The Constitution applies only to the Federal government except where the States are specifically empowered or prohibited. The doctrine of incorporation is extra-constitutional and is nothing more than judicial activism. The 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. It was an Amendment to guarantee the newly freed slaves have the same rights as Americans.

    Don't like gun laws in the states? Change it through legislation rather than whining to the courts.

  6. #6
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The Constitution applies only to the Federal government except where the States are specifically empowered or prohibited....The 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.
    Correct, originally, the Constitution only regulated federal matters and States were left alone, but along comes the 14th:

    ...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.
    SCOTUS has routinely decided that the other amendments (1st, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) in the Bill or Rights has applies to all government (federal, State, and local). Your State cannot censor your free speech nor can it execute you in a cruel and unusual way (remember all those lethal injection cases recently?).

    It is a logical argument that the 2nd amendment should be applied in the same manner as the rest of the Bill or Rights.

    For better or worse, SCOTUS' opinion is the one that counts.

  7. #7
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by nutz4utwo View Post
    Correct, originally, the Constitution only regulated federal matters and States were left alone, but along comes the 14th:
    Not applicable. Though Bingham thought that was the content of the Amendment, that is not the wording nor what the people voted on in ratifying it.

    SCOTUS has routinely decided that the other amendments (1st, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) in the Bill or Rights has applies to all government (federal, State, and local). Your State cannot censor your free speech nor can it execute you in a cruel and unusual way (remember all those lethal injection cases recently?).

    It is a logical argument that the 2nd amendment should be applied in the same manner as the rest of the Bill or Rights.
    This is one of my favorite discussions. I suggest you read this thread in its entirety,

    http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ongress-1.html

    and either have the mods open it again or comment on it here.

    For better or worse, SCOTUS' opinion is the one that counts.
    So, you agree with the Court's Dred Scott opinion? I commend your use of the word opinion. Many think they are rulings, which is utter nonsense.

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,926
    Quote Originally Posted by AEA View Post
    If they just forget about the Courts BS again and simply cut off Federal Aid to Chicago and to the State of Ill, he may change his tune.......
    Hope they would.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    This is one of my favorite discussions. I suggest you read this thread in its entirety,

    http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ongress-1.html
    I read it, and not to completely open up the topic, I didn't think you made your case. I saw a lot of assertions and unanswered rebuttals. You got the last word, and the thread is closed.

    It's an interesting topic that I've been reading about lately. I don't want to debate the whole issue with you, but I'll make one comment on a point you made over and over. The fourteenth amendment wasn't just to guarantee the rights of freed slaves, as you said citizens of no state. It was also to protect the rights of all citizens from the states who were routinely being denied their basic rights right along with the freed slaves. That's what I've read about the intention of the 14th, and it clearly continues to force the states to respect our basic constitutional rights. The 2nd amendment is soon to added to that list of rights.

  10. #10
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    The fourteenth amendment wasn't just to guarantee the rights of freed slaves, as you said citizens of no state. It was also to protect the rights of all citizens from the states who were routinely being denied their basic rights right along with the freed slaves.
    The problem with that is twofold. One, though that is what Bingham might have intended, his speeches ranged from incoherent to self contradictory, the text of the Amendment does not support that interpretation.

    Two, the context was from the Reconstruction period. The states were healing from the most awful period in our history. The 13th-15th Amendments were clearly to protect the newly freed slaves. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous on its face. As we see today, some use circumstances to pass undesired legislation (can you say eamarks?) It was no different then that people like Bingham abused current events to push through his unwanted national commandments in a time of great national discord.

    Even Senator Howard, a supporter of Bingham, acknowledged the Founders intended the Bill of Rights was to apply ONLY to the Federal government. The more we deviate from the Founder's intent and nation they provided for us, the further we go down the road to ruin.

    Interestingly, to believe the states thought they were voting on your perception is inconsistent with the laws the states had passed and were correctly observed. Why would a state vote to overturn the very statutes they themselves enacted? The answer is they didn't. The Fourteenth has nothing to do with incorporation and everything to do with the rights of the newly freed slaves. That is what history tells us and that is what we should strive to protect: the rights of the states.

    The 2nd amendment is soon to added to that list of rights.
    Incorporation is anti-Constitutional and completely discounts the ideals of Federalism.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,837
    It could be a positive.... if it gives a reinforcment of the Court ruling that Cities cannot do this ... and reinforce, people's right to 'have and bear arms'. We need some 'bad' examples, to help guide the others in what not to do. Daly in the meantime, thinks he's becoming a matyr for the anti's and winning their votes.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array BeefyBeefo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    954
    I'm so glad I moved out of there to Colorado a little over two months ago.

    -Jeff-

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The 13th-15th Amendments were clearly to protect the newly freed slaves. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous on its face.
    Well, with that kind of rock solid argument, I guess that settles it.

  14. #14
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Well, with that kind of rock solid argument, I guess that settles it.
    Thanks!

    Seriously, I have previously presented 'rock solid' arguments in favor of my position and they are completely supported by the Constitutional scholar, Charles Fairman. and Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter.

    Although, I do understand the liberal interpretation and living Constitution argument to be founded in....progressive values.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Seriously, I have previously presented 'rock solid' arguments in favor of my position
    Another rock solid argument.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Chicago Code of Silence - Beating the Bullets in Chicago
    By scott625 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 8th, 2010, 04:56 PM
  2. WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  3. Chicago files brief in McDonald v City of Chicago
    By ming in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 1st, 2010, 05:54 PM
  4. Second Amendment Freedom Rally - Chicago 7/11/2008
    By CyberGuyPR in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 26th, 2008, 11:43 AM
  5. Philadelphia Defies Preemption
    By falcon1 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: May 15th, 2007, 12:13 AM