Chicago, guns and the court

I asked the following:

Highlander wrote:

Two things for >YOU< answer:

[1] PLEASE SHOW =WHERE= IN THE SECOND ARTICLE OF AMENDMENT, that there's a statement regarding the matter of 'whatever mode' of carriage.

Can do?
[2] PLEASE SHOW =WHERE= IN THE USC, there exists the POWER for the Government to regulate the exercise of individual rights.

Can do?

We —the rest of us— await your learned response!

AND YOU AVERRED:

broken wrote:

<quoted text>
Bearing arms woud be up to interpretation, and it would appear the states are defing how that right is expressed.

According to yourself, how would that be in the face of this:
—————
USC, Art. VI, Paragraph (2):

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
———
USC Article of Amendment II:

"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."
———

USC Article of Amendment XIV, Section I:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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."
—————
According to USC Art. VI, Paragraph (2) the USC applies to all states —REGARDLESS OF WHAT >THEIR< Constitutions say otherwise.

According to USC Art. of Amend. II, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

According to USC Art. of Amend. XIV, "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;"

By way of USC Art. VI, Paragraph (2), ALL AMENDMENTS APPLY TO ALL STATES, REGARDLESS.

Ergo, >YOUR< remark regarding what the States may engage in is —at best— equivocation and dissemblance.

broken wrote:

There are supposed to be reasonable limitations, on all amendments.

I priorly asked >YOU< this question:

PLEASE SHOW =WHERE= IN THE USC, there exists the POWER for the Government to regulate the exercise of individual rights.

broken wrote:

You can't go in a theater and scream fire, despite the fact that you may be just expressing yourself thru your first amendment rights.

YES, I =CAN= go into a theater and 'yell fire.'

SHOW ME THE LAW which says otherwise?

broken wrote:

I'm not against concealed carry, I think there should be a national policy much like police officers can carry in any state now.

THERE IS a national policy: The Second Article of Amendment.

What do >YOU< not understand about THAT?

And further to my last:

broken wrote:

<quoted text>
Bearing arms woud be up to interpretation, and it would appear the states are defing how that right is expressed.

May we —the rest of us— surmise that you would also allow the states to determine what —if any— religion may be allowed, and how one may —or may not— worship, and where?

And what of all the ~other~ rights?

Are THOSE TOO to be subject to 'interpretation' as >YOU< would have it?

Or, is it just the Second Article of Amendment that you have trouble with?

broken wrote:

There are supposed to be reasonable limitations, on all amendments.

Reasonable according to WHOM?

I fear that what >YOU< are remiss to FULLY COMPREHEND is that the nature of ALL RIGHTS would be subject to whatever political wind happens to be blowing at any given moment.

So, you'll be telling the rest of us how ~you~ would prevent random reinterpretations of rights?

Or, are you ~yet another~ moral relativist whom figures that nothing is fixed in law, and that at the whim of the next tyrant, just anything will be allowed to happen, if only "That was then, and this is now." Right?

Right?

Who do you think you are ! They don't want freedom - they want their hero their govt to control everyone. How dare you interfere with their right to do that.

Didn't you ever read 'Animal Farm'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

I think the argument that the SC's decision "will lead to years of litigation about the constitutionality of various firearms restrictions" is ridiculous. If it were any other constitutional right at issue, would people be complaining that the court shouldn't have enforced the right because it would lead to more litigation? Brown v. Board of Education probably led to more litigation than any case in history, including direct judicial supervision of integration in some districts. But no one complained about that, because it was part of the process of enforcing a constitutional right. This shouldn't be any different.

Tory II wrote:

Who do you think you are ! They don't want freedom - they want their hero their govt to control everyone. How dare you interfere with their right to do that.
Didn't you ever read 'Animal Farm'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

funny thing is, when i was in school this was required reading..i gave my kids the book to read along with 1984. this should be required reading for all highschools. and most liberials and anti gunners...maybe they would learn...probably not

Greg wrote:

I think the argument that the SC's decision "will lead to years of litigation about the constitutionality of various firearms restrictions" is ridiculous. If it were any other constitutional right at issue, would people be complaining that the court shouldn't have enforced the right because it would lead to more litigation? Brown v. Board of Education probably led to more litigation than any case in history, including direct judicial supervision of integration in some districts. But no one complained about that, because it was part of the process of enforcing a constitutional right. This shouldn't be any different.

I'm going to think that the Heller decision was horse trading on the part of Scalia and Kennedy, inasmuch that if the majority DIDN'T surrender to the idea of 'regulation,' Kennedy would have voted with the others.

So, in order to save face and get the decision that was needed, they bargained.

That how I see things.

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm going to think that the Heller decision was horse trading on the part of Scalia and Kennedy, inasmuch that if the majority DIDN'T surrender to the idea of 'regulation,' Kennedy would have voted with the others.
So, in order to save face and get the decision that was needed, they bargained.
That how I see things.

And it may have given us more time to get at least one more conservative into the SCOTUS. If Obama gets in...

[FOUR Justices voted against Heller]

jmac wrote:

<quoted text>funny thing is, when i was in school this was required reading..i gave my kids the book to read along with 1984. this should be required reading for all highschools. and most liberials and anti gunners...maybe they would learn...probably not

Yea, it should be required reading in all public schools.

Greg wrote:

I think the argument that the SC's decision "will lead to years of litigation about the constitutionality of various firearms restrictions" is ridiculous. If it were any other constitutional right at issue, would people be complaining that the court shouldn't have enforced the right because it would lead to more litigation? Brown v. Board of Education probably led to more litigation than any case in history, including direct judicial supervision of integration in some districts. But no one complained about that, because it was part of the process of enforcing a constitutional right. This shouldn't be any different.

Good post, great point.

It's important to note that the article contains some flawed reasoning of it's own. I wish I could remember the case, but requiring licenses to access a guaranteed right is unconstitutional!

Again!

Turning "Rights" into "Privliges" by requiring a license and a fee to access your "Right" is not legal!

I am not making this up people!

broken wrote:

<quoted text>
Bearing arms woud be up to interpretation, and it would appear the states are defing how that right is expressed.
There are supposed to be reasonable limitations, on all amendments. You can't go in a theater and scream fire, despite the fact that you may be just expressing yourself thru your first amendment rights.
I'm not against concealed carry, I think there should be a national policy much like police officers can carry in any state now.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

Please explain how THAT is "up to interpretation"?

Tony wrote:

It's important to note that the article contains some flawed reasoning of it's own. I wish I could remember the case, but requiring licenses to access a guaranteed right is unconstitutional!
Again!
Turning "Rights" into "Privliges" by requiring a license and a fee to access your "Right" is not legal!
I am not making this up people!

CORRECT:

"Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."

- Watson v. Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1963)

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."

- State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)

"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions."

- Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

- Miranda vs. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491,(1966)

"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control and suppress its enjoyment.... A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the federal constitution.... Thus it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce.... This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the State. The privilege in question exists apart from State authority. It is guaranteed the People by the federal constitution."

- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).

and the paper stands behind Daley over the Constitution???

Ah Yes, Murdock vs. Pennsylvania is the one I was thinking of. Thanks for elaborating

Now that Firearm ownership has been identified as an individual right, wouldn't that make FOID an unconstitutional program?

Unless of course they stopped charging for the application?

Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller was based upon the historical facts. The minority's dissent was not. The minority relied on the amicus brief filed by fifteen professional academic historians and constitutional law scholars who essentially mislead them. Read the History News Network criticism of that historically misleading amicus brief here:
http://hnn.us/articles/47238.html
The HNN article helps explain why the intent of the Second Amendment has been the subject of dispute for decades.

Trib Editors said: "But that means there's still likely to be ways for state and local governments to impose reasonable restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms..."

I say: There are already restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms, both reasonable and unreasonable. And we that value our rights are going to make sure that the unreasonable ones currently on the books are repealed.

What are the reasonable gun laws that ought to be passed? Elimination of handgun bans in Chicago, Evanston, Oak Park, and Winnetka. Liberalized carry laws. Statewide pre-emption of firearm laws. Elimination of arbitrary prohibitions on certain semi-auto firearms. Repeal of the FOID Act (gun owner registration). Allow NFA-controlled firearms and accessories in Illinois. I could go on.

Basically, we want to encourage guns in good hands, and discourage them from bad hands.

Trib said: "Such measures will have a decent chance of passing legal muster ... That is happening in Washington, D.C."

No, it's not happening in DC. Tribune, do your homework.

The DC city council is obstructing the law, and thumbing their nose at the highest court in our nation and the constitution valued and enshrined by we the people. In fact, Fenty and company are being so obtuse that the US House (already approved by Democrat majority leaders) has introduced HR 6691, entitled the "Second Amendment Enforcement Act." Why? Because the DC council is not acting lawfully, and it's time for Congress to step in and get the job done for them. Sad, really, and it doesn't have to be this way.

HR 6691 would: repeal licensing, repeal registration, repeal their ban on common semiautos (absurdly defined as machine guns), repeal the trigger lock/disassembly requirement, repeal photo and fingerprinting requirements, allow DC residents to purchase in MD and VA ... among other things.

The same will happen to Chicago's "leadership" if they decide to remain stubborn, obtuse, and to deny US citizens their constitutional right to arms, and their human right to self defense.

Your article is silly, factually dishonest, and filled with boneheaded thinking. Chicago's gun ban has not made the streets safer, contrary to the implications in your paper. The FOID card system has not kept guns out of the hands of the cowards who drive-by and shoot other humans. Washington DC's current "ban" (That's what it is) will fail. These "controls" are directed at the wrong people. Your writers should know better than to endorse governmental actions that don't ameliorate the root causes of dysfunctional elements of Chicago and other urban areas. How many of your editorial writers engage in drive-bys? Why don't they? They can all obtain guns, yet they don't do violent things to others. Why?

Screw the chicago commies....we'll always own guns and will fight for our rights always.