Defensive Carry banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
Interesting reading. First, Chicago starts out by trying the "militia argument" saying that the 2d amendment only applies "to the militia" to which SCOTUS just said NOT! in Heller.

Then, Chicago argues that other countries bans on firearms means that ordered liberty allows the bans. Neatly forgetting that other countries aren't THIS country and that those other countries don't have constitutional amendments.

Next, Chicago argues that a total ban on firearms doesn't somehow come afoul of the 2d amendment because a ban on firearms doesn't mean a complete ban on a "tool" usable for self defense. Thusly omitting the fact that swords, knives, dirks, daggers, pipes, canes, etc are ALL banned too.

Chicago also argues that the Privileges or Immunities clause doesn't apply to citizens of States because they are STATE citizens and not US citizens. Once again omitting the fact that ALL citizens of any State in the Union are also US citizens. If not, then the freedmen wouldn't have any protections at all under the 14th.

At that point I realized that Chicago is just restating DC's position in Heller because there isn't anything more to say than what was already said in Heller by both/all sides. There isn't any legal precedent that hasn't been looked at and analyzed for it's use either pro or con by any party and already used or discarded in Heller.

The real issue isn't guns. The real issue is whether the 14th amendment protects the citizens from overreaching by the individual States through removing protections that pre-exist the forming of this country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,708 Posts
I hope for our brothers in Illinois that the lame response from Chicago gets the heave ho from the Supremes.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,182 Posts
I hope for our brothers in Illinois that the lame response from Chicago gets the heave ho from the Supremes.
AMEN !!!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
50,610 Posts
Soon...:buttkick: (Chicago is receiving)...very soon!:yup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
441 Posts
As is stated in my sig line for some time:
I am hoping that the SCOTUS sends a message back to Chicago that involves a jar of vasoline...:yup:
Pretty much says it all!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
The real issue isn't guns. The real issue is whether the 14th amendment protects the citizens from overreaching by the individual States through removing protections that pre-exist the forming of this country.
Yes. If only the nine robes will see the simplicity of it, ignoring their long-held biases.

The people in the several states founded the nation on the basis of a handful of core, foundation principles, including the right to be armed as individuals see fit. The CORE principles apply to all citizens, always, everywhere. But state evasion has rendered many of them impotent and irrelevant.

Wouldn't it be something, if the 1A applied to everyone, if the 2A applied to everyone, and so on. What a concept.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Very interesting reading. Am still getting through several of the documents. Thank you for the links, all.

Hm. Slaughterhouse. The 14A incorporation idea. Privileges & Immunities. The simple fact of the right of people to defend themselves being thwarted by fearful, controlling bureaucrats. If the supremes find it within themselves to avoid the strong political biases this time around, they might read this one correctly. We'll see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
I hope so. Maybe this will be the final straw for Mayor Daley and our corrupt politians that have no back bone!!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,539 Posts
An article I found interesting:

Laboratories of Repression
We don’t let the states “experiment” on the First Amendment. Should the Second Amendment receive any less respect?

Damon W. Root | December 31, 2009

In 1932, progressive Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis penned one of the most famous passages in American jurisprudence. “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system,” Brandeis wrote in his dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, “that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

Since then, Brandeis’ famous words have been quoted or referenced countless times, appearing everywhere from legal documents to campaign speeches. Most recently, they surfaced in the arguments leading up to the landmark Second Amendment case McDonald v. Chicago, which the Supreme Court is set to hear in early March 2010.

At issue in the case is Chicago’s draconian handgun ban, a restriction that largely mirrors the gun control law struck down last year by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. The key difference is that Heller only decided whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right against infringement by the federal government (which oversees Washington, D.C.). McDonald will settle whether the amendment’s right to keep and bear arms applies against state and local governments as well.
See the remainder of the article here:
Laboratories of Repression - Reason Magazine
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Wonder how BHO will meddle in this one? Either above the table or below. I suspect "Dick" D won't be able to stay out of this one either. :mad:
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top