Gunco Forums banner

Daley promises to fight to keep handgun ban

2K views 18 replies 7 participants last post by  kernelkrink 
#1 ·
Mayor Richard Daley was adamant Friday about Chicago`s intention to defend its handgun ban in court, despite news that a second area suburb was likely to repeal its ordinance next week.

More...
 
#3 ·
While we all know how this is going to turn out in the end, Daley is correct in that the SCOTUS decision doesn't affect state and local laws. Yet. The wording used by Scalia leaves little doubt the Second Amendment will be "incorporated" like the others have been, it is only a matter of time and lawsuits like the ones against Chicago and SanFran. SCOTUS can only rule on issues before them, and "incorporation" was not before them. With donkeyholes like Daley leading the charge, incorporation is almost assured.

Pity they don't realize getting rid of an absolute ban and replacing it with a new law that at least has a chance of allowing gun ownership in the home would forestall many of the lawsuits and delay or perhaps even eliminate the possibility of incorporation. Remember the SCOTUS only explicitly struck down an absolute ban on handguns, if no such ban exists anywhere beyond DC then there is no case that can be brought before SCOTUS to bring on incorporation.
 
#5 ·
Krink.

Can you please say that for dummies like me. So what you are saying is the law is only good in D.C. I don't get it.
Is not the Supreme Court the final word on the subject. How the hell can Daley just ignore what there decision is.
What the hell good is a Supreme Court if nobody has to pay attention to it.
 
#6 ·
The bill of rights only applies to the Federal government, not to states. The SCOTUS ruling only affects federal law at this time, DC is not a state. Over the years individual rights in the BOR have been "incorporated" under the 14th amendment to also apply to states. The second has not, as of yet, been incorporated since a State/local law has not come before them. Once it does, they can incorporate the decision to apply to states and cities as well. Scalia pretty much said as much when he called it a natural right that predates the Constitution. SCOTUS can't rule on an issue not before them, and Heller did not bring any States into the decision as DC is not a state, but a federal district. Heller applies everywhere in the US, but at the moment it only applies to Federal agencies and laws.
 
#7 ·
Kernel. Thank You.

When a Country becomes a place of so incredibly confusing laws it becomes lawless. This being that the court system becomes so tied up with court cases as to become ineffective. The smartest, usually best paid lawyer, wins. Not what is rite or wrong.
While inpatient at the Miami V.A. for a few months, myself and my roommate, a black Marine, had long discussions on the O.J. Simson case.
Was O.J. guilty? I said "Your missing the point. The white man has been buying his way out of guilty charges for the last two centuries." "This is the first time the white man has watched a black man buy his way out of a guilty charge on national T.V."
No matter your feelings on any of the pro gun groups. The time to donate is now. Cause the more money they have to fight this battle. The better the chances of us keeping our weapons.
 
#9 ·
Well, I just read that Heller filed suit against DC for not honoring the SCOTUS ruling.
I suppose that even if he wins, this thing will go on forever in the lower courts?
The argument of DC state vs district is old and frought with holes.
-A part of the Union(non-foreign embassy)
-has electoral college votes
-has representation in congress
-citizens pay taxes
-DC has non voting representation in congress
-DC operates under home rule, not under the direct supervision of the federal government
the argument that they dont have to abide by federal directives because "they are not a state" is bullshit, but I suppose that it CAN be argued successfully by a lawyer in court?
I Find it silly that the state DO NOT have to abide by the BOR as it were. Althoug, I agree that the initial role of the federal government was assisting the states(a minimalist "hands off" position, giving the states the power), not direct oversight or management. But The Constitution and the BOR are to be adhered to by all members of the Union, yes?
 
#10 ·
Until the fourteenth amendment was ratified, the Constitution and all it's associated documents (BOR) only and strictly applied to the Federal government.

We were a loose federation of independent States up until that time. States rights trumped Federal powers/rights.

So, when you all say "we've become" a land of confusing laws, don't point to the Constitution and/or BOR, they've always been there and have been applied relatively consistently throughout the history of the country.

Personally, I find it silly, no not silly, a bit disgusting, that I'm seeing posts on a gun-oriented forum that imply members want even more power vested at the Federal level, effectively stripping States rights, in order to assert the natural right of keeping and bearing arms.

If this were a discussion about abortion "rights" the hue and cry would be for local (i.e. State) control, not about Federal power over States. You can't have it both ways.
 
#11 ·
So what you are saying SJ is the Heller decision only applied to the District of Columbia. All that money and effort and time spent and the decision means nothing on a State by State level.
Excuse my ignorance, but I was usually the one standing in front of the Judge in my younger days. :rofl:
So what you are saying is each State can now ignore the SCOTUS decision and it has to be fought on a State by State level. Then back to the Supreme beings in D.C. Damn I'm confused. Why do we have a Supreme Court if this is the case.
Speak English Bud I'm getting old and senile. Plus I only have till 4 o'clock. That starts happy hour. :geezer::cheers::)
 
#12 ·
Thanks, I was a bit confused on this one. I think I get it now.
Krink said that this doesnt apply to cities and municipalities because that's the STATES job.
AH HA!
SJ, ya got me wrong scro, read my last post. I AM Most certainly NOT for more fed power and I acknowledged that in my last post.The original plan was to have the Fed govt there FOR THE states, not the other way around.
I was a bit confused, that's all.
 
#13 ·
uprgayedd.

Dont worry about it. If your confused I'm totally friggen confused. :rofl:
I still don't know what the hell is going on. Hell it took me two days to figure out what the hell SCOTUS was.
Can't we start like a blue collar site.
"Hey Tony what the frig is them big boys talkin?"
" Frig I don't know Joey. Something about packin heat."
" I ain't given up my heater for nuttin Tony."
" Friggn A Joey. I don't know who dem SCOTO guys is but they ain't gonna tell me I can or can't pack."
"Hell things is gettin so bad I gotta wear heat to church."
"Yeah Yeah don't worry about it Joey. Them Scrotum guys says it's ok I guess."

Mods- Poll please for "Blue Collar Site." Thank You.
 
#14 ·
Gents,

I'm a firm believer that any and all firearms should be available at market prices to any law-abiding citizen of the U.S. Nothing would please me more, personally, than the Supreme Court making that a fact.

But consider how Roe vs. Wade struck down State laws, taking away the rights of individual States to govern abortions. In one landmark decision, the Supreme Court gave more power to the Federal government while taking that power from the States.

Consider how Roe vs. Wade set in motion people and groups of people dedicated to the overturn of Roe vs. Wade. Think how, if case law is not carefully crafted to present and protect our natural right of personal defense of ourselves and our country, think how the gun control people and groups will be similarly galvanized.

I'm simply advocating patience so that our natural rights will be maintained; I do not want to provide ammunition to those who would attempt to remove those rights.

And, if not done with care, incorporation of the Second Amendment WILL certainly galvanize the gun controllers to seek an overturn of the Second Amendment. Each year that passes places the Roe vs. Wade at increasing risk of being overturned. Do we want the same for the Second Amendment?
 
#15 ·
SJ and The Boys,

As a Political Science major, I can see both sides of this discussion.

Maybe we could cure this new age "having it both ways" issue by going forward and electing Senator Hillary Clinton as our next President.

The EVERYONE could have it BOTH WAYS!

Male / Female or BOTH,...just like our NEW President.


Bob


PS,..and how many of you filthy perverts thought I meant...FRONT or REAR?
 
#17 ·
4th, the Heller decision is a limit on Federal powers, and since DC is a federal district, not a state, it also applies to DC directly. Scalia's wording makes it clear he would have incorporated the second amendment to include restrictions on state laws as well, but since the suit was brought in DC they couldn't do so at this time. Eventually one of the "son of heller" lawsuits being brought against individual city bans in an actual state will work it's way through the system and then it will be incorporated. At least 48 state have some form of gun rights written into their state constitutions, so only Kali and Illinois can legally ban guns right now.

Once we have a few easy wins on our side we can start looking towards getting rid of some of the more questionable federal and state laws. Unfortunately, it will be a long drawn out case by case process.
 
#18 ·
Thanks guys for explaining that.
Damn that is why I liked the old days in Vermont. Open carry legal. The only place you could not carry was a town meeting and a bar. Crime rate. HAA Very very low.
A rifle on a rack in your pickup truck was a requirement. Hell new trucks came with a rifle rack. :rofl:
Two guys broke into a elderly womans barn in the town of Wilmington where I lived. She called the cops and told them she had her shotgun and was heading out to track em. She caught up to one wrapped up in a barbed wire fence. He wet his pants when he saw the shotgun. The cops got the other guy.
The antis just don't get it. Crime will always be there. Guns in the hands of honest legal citizens are what is feared by the criminals.
I guess for the antis they understand that the police are only minutes away.
I gotta E-mail Daley and see if he travels with armed body guards.
 
#19 ·
Your old lady reminds me of an "armed citizen" column in an old NRA mag. Retired lady is awakened by a man in her bedroom, he tells her "stay in bed Granny, and you won't get hurt". As he is kneeling in her closet, rummaging around for valuables she queitly retrieves her double bbl 12 guage from under the bed, sneaks up behind him, and in her words "blew his keister off"! No charges filed, but I'm sure the cleanup was a nightmare! IIRC, he survived and did jail time.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top