Supreme Court to look at Chicago gun ban

posted at 12:15 pm on September 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Supreme Court has decided to tackle another local gun ban, this time in Chicago, where a lower court upheld an ordinance outlawing handguns.  The decision indicates that the Roberts Court wants to clarify further its decision in Heller, which struck down a similar ban in Washington DC as unconstitutional.  The McDonald case gives the court an entree to broadening its incorporation doctrine for the Second Amendment (via The Right Scoop):

The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court’s decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The new case tests whether last year’s ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

The doctrine of “incorporation” holds that the rights enumerated to individuals in the Constitution have to be respected by states and localities as well.  This may seem rather obvious, and usually gets applied to questions of free speech, religious practice, and so on.  However, courts have vacillated on incorporation, and even Heller didn’t directly rule on it, as DC is a federal jurisdiction.

At the time, Justice Antonin Scalia hinted that the court would address incorporation more directly. McDonald gives them that opportunity.  If they rule that the states must respect the US Constitution as a baseline of protections for American citizens in all states, then gun bans such as those in McDonald cannot stand.  Second Amendment advocates have long argued this, and they may soon have the victory they seek.

That could have other implications as well. Tom King noted that liberals might like that kind of ruling in order to force all 50 states to use grand jury proceedings for indictments in order to comply with the Fifth Amendment.  If so, defense attorneys could already be preparing habeas corpus motions by the bucketload in the roughly half of the states that don’t require it.

The court itself will be interesting to watch on this question.  Its newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, ruled on another case in the same manner as the appellate court in McDonald.  She replaced David Souter, who would likely have voted similarly, so the balance of the court has not shifted to the left since Heller.  It may give the current court an interesting opportunity to rebuke one of their colleagues, albeit indirectly.  Just the fact that they have decided to hear McDonald indicates a desire to settle the incorporation and Second Amendment issues forcefully, and we’ll see if they follow through on that promise.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 3:08 PM
They explicitly refer to two different things: your interpretation of the amendment,

Okay, first of all that was crr6′s interpretation, I was merely addressing that.

Hey, let’s cut to the chase. Tell me, how You know what ‘crr6′ meant in those postings.
Maybe you can let us all in on what the founding fathers meant by the statement:
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.

Is That a fundamental right?

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 3:44 PM

I would agree that the right should be incorporated, but I don’t agree with the court’s current interpretation of that right (from Heller).

So in short, I agree that the right of state militias to keep and bear arms should be incorporated. My quibble isn’t with the incorporation doctrine, but with the recent case law interpreting the 2nd amendment.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 12:41 PM


You know, I can’t help but say that your ideal concept would be amusing to see executed. A SCOTUS confirmation that states may not limit the rights of the states to maintain a militia. Does this mean that they are now required to raise a militia?

Reason I ask is, the Militia Act of 1903 holds that all able-bodied men between 17 and 45 are part of the reserve (unorganized) militia. Some states have greater militia memberships (Illinois in particular talks about all able-bodied citizens not exempt by law). Since you seem to stipulate that an armed militia is good…then I can see only one endgame to your suggested ideal ruling.

Everyone who falls under an applicable militia statute would either be issued or required buy a firearm, and maintain a minimum level of proficiency. Think Switzerland, though I would expect a much more complex web of state and federal subsidies to ensure no undue economic hardship (cause that’s how the US rolls).

I say all that because for someone who is arguing very hard that people don’t know their positions well…yours seems to work out equally well for the hypocrites, and seems to be at least as poorly thought out. There may be a point about differentiating between right to bear arms and duty to bear arms–but I am not prepared to make it.

Oh, and full disclosure: I dislike incorporation. However, from my reading of the 14th Ammendment…I think that’s the original intent of it. I tend to give the Constitution the benefit of the doubt, so I’m stuck abiding by something I dislike. Interestingly…Heller seems that it would put you in the same position. At least until it gets overturned.

And following that stipulation, I would expect the doctrine to applied across the board…because that’s the original intent. So let’s see all of those Grand Juries and so on and so forth. At least ’till a new Ammendment comes out superseding incorporation.

go_jackets on September 30, 2009 at 3:44 PM

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 3:08 PM
They explicitly refer to two different things: your interpretation of the amendment,

Okay, first of all that was crr6’s interpretation, I was merely addressing that.

Hey, let’s cut to the chase. Tell me, how DO You know what ‘crr6′ meant in those postings.
Maybe you can let us all in on what the founding fathers meant by the statement:

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.

Is That a fundamental right?

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 3:46 PM

And following that stipulation, I would expect the doctrine to applied across the board…because that’s the original intent. So let’s see all of those Grand Juries and so on and so forth. At least ’till a new Ammendment comes out superseding incorporation.

go_jackets on September 30, 2009 at 3:44 PM

What? A constitutional amendment to amend the constitution!

They don’t do that in Europe!!!! /sarc

Chris_Balsz on September 30, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Thanks for coming down from Mt. Olympus to declare which rights I have that are “fundamental” and which aren’t. Now, if you’ll excuse me, as a Chicago resident, I have to start picking out which guns I will be purchasing in the near future.

venividivici on September 30, 2009

Pick well, V3.
I hope you win because it’s right…and because I’d love to watch Dumdum Daley’s head explode.

SKYFOX on September 30, 2009 at 3:53 PM

A definition of “equal protection under the laws” that excludes some articulated rights, and not others, at the whim of state government, is not all that equal. I admit, I’m a californian, and our state government is like the Bonnano family–crooks, but stupid crazy broke crooks.

Chris_Balsz on September 30, 2009 at 3:37 PM

I’m probably just not understanding what you wrote, so forgive me if this doesn’t address your point. But, the 14th A “equal protection” clause prohibits States from denying equal protection of its laws to persons within its jurisdiction. It doesn’t say anything about laws as between States.

Firefly_76 on September 30, 2009 at 3:55 PM

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Thanks for explaining all that to Juno77. He can get a little confused when discussing complex things.

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Yes, it is a right of state militia’s to bear arms.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Pick well, V3.
I hope you win because it’s right…and because I’d love to watch Dumdum Daley’s head explode.

SKYFOX on September 30, 2009 at 3:53 PM

I have been waiting for this case since Heller. I’m very hopeful. It’d be great to see Daley have to walk back the tut-tutting he did in the wake of the Heller decision, talking about Chicago having its own view on the issues.

venividivici on September 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM

O, that it were so.

Illinois is controlled politically by Cook County, by virtue of population. Cook County and Chicago are controlled politically by the Dem/Mob/Union thugs of Richie Daley.

The very guys who are most likely to support the 2nd Amendment — white, blue collar workers — are controlled by the Dem/Mob because they control their jobs. Many of them are stupid enough to believe that unionism is a political issue. The rest just know where there bread is buttered.

This one cunning political lever is the only reason you can tell Richie da Mare apart from a stump. But until a truck runs over him, this is the facts of life in Illinois.

Jaibones on September 30, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Ohhh, how right you are jailbones.

macblanegirl on September 30, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Very interesting discussion here, I’ve always believed the Bill of Rights would prevent ANY form of government from stripping away those rights, as have most all people I believe. The statement by WashJeff on September 30, 2009 at 3:28 PM as well as many others is a good education for me.

I just checked the PA constitution, here is Article 1, Declaration of Rights – That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, WE DECLARE THAT –
Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

So Pennsylvania also repeated this right in their constitution. And as the heading notes, it is an unalterable right. I’m glad that my state has this in their constitution, and I willfully participate in my right to bear arms.

In light of the discussion as to whether the states can take away these rights, I think it’s interesting that the Supreme Court is taking up this case. They obviously think there is some merit as to whether the right to bear arms belongs to the people or to the state.

CBP on September 30, 2009 at 4:06 PM

They obviously think there is some merit as to whether the right to bear arms belongs to the people or to the state.

CBP on September 30, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Governments are instituted by men (people for PC types), so in a just world, governments should only be allowed to do what the governed allow them to do (enumerated powers). The right to bear arms remains in existence only if the people have not given up that right to their government. In our country, and most states, PA is another example, the people have explicitly NOT given up that right to each government.

WashJeff on September 30, 2009 at 4:15 PM

An armed citizenry is an intolerable offense to the idea of the state imperium. It is both an abstract and real threat. In theory and reality the power of the state depends on public impotence, ignorance and supplication.

rrpjr on September 30, 2009 at 1:47 PM

That’s one reason I openly carry a firearm daily. Another is an honor roll student being killed by thugs with 2×4′s.

Sic Semper Tyrannus

riverrat10k on September 30, 2009 at 4:33 PM

I hope Scalia understands (I’m sure he does) that Heller clarified a little and muddied a lot and that he gives us a decision that is both clear and simple.

Speakup on September 30, 2009 at 4:38 PM

WashJeff on September 30, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Its also true that its the inherent nature of Government to grow, and take more power. The only time governments give up power, is when they are forced by an angry populace. It can, at times be forced peacefully, but most times it is through revolution.

The Founders understood this… you can read it in their writings… they knew that eventualy if unchecked the Government would become a tyrant… so they placed as many inpediments to this process in the way as they could, and still have a functional government.

They then gave the populace the ability, through being ARMED, to ensure that they could have the ability to overthrow a tyranical government.

Well, our government, over time, through the courts and the Congress, have overthrown many of those indepiments.

Heck, we can’t even sue our own govenrment for not following its OWN laws.

We have almost reached that tipping point the Founders saw coming…. it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Romeo13 on September 30, 2009 at 4:41 PM

It matters not how this case gets decided, just as it didn’t matter in Heller. Note that Mr. Heller still does not have a gun permit (last I heard). The District simply rewrote their laws to declare his specific kind of gun illegal for yet another stupid reason. The District can keep this up forever, Heller only so long as he lives.

And if any of you think any of the rest of the Constitution matters to those currently in office and sworn to uphold it, I must yet again remind you of the BCRA and the Kelo decision. All 3 branches of govt are colluding to make the Constitution irrelevant, and so far they have succeeded masterfully.

We the people have zero representation at the federal level, and most of us have little more at the state and/or local level. The only possible solution (secession) to this will never happen.

runawayyyy on September 30, 2009 at 4:42 PM

Okay, first of all that was crr6’s interpretation, I was merely addressing that.

You weren’t addressing the interpretation, you were claiming that the two statements were contradictory, which they weren’t.

Hey, let’s cut to the chase. Tell me, how You know what ‘crr6′ meant in those postings.

Because of what crr6 wrote in the initial posts and in follow-ups? It was pretty clear, and explained clearly and repeatedly.

Maybe you can let us all in on what the founding fathers meant by the statement:
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.

Is That a fundamental right?

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 3:44 PM

If I just read the text plainly, I’d probably conclude that it guaranteed (as fundamental) the right of individuals to own and bear firearms as part of a militia. That is, if they’re not in a militia, and if they’re not purporting to use it as part of a militia, then they don’t have that right. The reason I’d interpret it that way is that otherwise it’s hard to explain why the militia term is in there. For example, the 1st amendment doesn’t say, “A free market of ideas being necessary to have a fair democracy, congress shall pass no law…” So I’d interpret the first amendment as very broad, but the second in the specific context of a militia.

But I wouldn’t be very confident about this interpretation, because the commas are all weird and because it’s strange that the militia thing is there in the first place. I’d definitely find the unqualified individual right interpretation to be reasonable.

I don’t know enough about the history of the intent behind the amendment, but I’ve seen arguments in favor of each side (individual right versus right to form a militia). On the whole I’d lean toward individual right being the original intent.

So to summarize: I don’t know whether to interpret the text on its own or in the context of the original intent, and regardless of which I choose I’m not 100% sure of the answer that that technique would use. I’m sorry that I’m not sure about this, but not that sorry because most constitutional scholars are not 100% certain either, and I’m not even a constitutional scholar.

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 4:46 PM

As I’m going through the comments, I see some discussion regarding the 2nd Ammendment and abortion. I notice that some mention abortion as a “Right”. It is NOT a Right that is protected by our Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Just because it is not illegal under current law, does not mean that it is a Right. I think that arguments trying to compare an act that is not illegal under current law, by calling it a “Right” to Rights protected by our Constitution and Bill Of Rights are flawed. I’m not trying to get off topic, but it just gets me frustrated when people refer to abortion as a right.

Viper on September 30, 2009 at 4:48 PM

Heck, we can’t even sue our own govenrment for not following its OWN laws.

Romeo13 on September 30, 2009 at 4:41 PM

An amendment that citizens can petition the SCOTUS to rule a law unconstitutional, or portion thereof, sure would be nice.

Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots.”

Seems to becoming more pertinent, but I hope, not acting on. Hopefully this is settled politically the next two elections and pendulum swings farther than even Reagan swung it.

WashJeff on September 30, 2009 at 4:51 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Hey, ‘crr6 ‘ you’re back to further contradict yourself. Unfortunately,’ tneloms’ only spouted so incoherent Bullsh*t, and also didn’t answer the question that was posed.

Since you “tneloms” are way more smarter than us peons maybe you or your alter ego can explain why it says “people” instead of ‘Militia’ in the second amendment?
Again for reference (since you clearly can’t be bothered to actually lower yourself to read some of our founding documents)

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.

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:01 PM

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Why do you Statists have a problem with people being able to defend themselves?

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:03 PM

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Can you explain how criminals have guns in places where they are banned?

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:04 PM

It is only “Good News” if the Justices have bothered to read the Constitution…I suspect 5-4 but Kennedy might go over to the dark side.

JIMV on September 30, 2009 at 5:05 PM

Since you “tneloms” are way more smarter than us peons maybe you or your alter ego can explain why it says “people” instead of ‘Militia’ in the second amendment?
Again for reference (since you clearly can’t be bothered to actually lower yourself to read some of our founding documents)

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.

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Because last time I checked, militia’s have “people” in them.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12953

If the bans/restrictions are overturned, “….the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” has teeth and The Constitution is still worth something other than toilet paper.

However, put VERY simply, if the ban is upheld, then The 2nd Amendment is invalid to States and will only be valid in Washington DC, Federal Territories and on Federal Property.

Put even more simply: If the ban is upheld, the current administration will more than likely move to take your guns and anything else they consider a weapon…… Well…… They’ll TRY ‘n take ‘em.

Molon Labe !

Kenny Solomon
Typical bitter Jewish God-clinging gun owner and barking-mad insane NASCAR fan.

E T Cartman on September 30, 2009 at 5:09 PM

“militias”*

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Why do you Statists have a problem with people being able to defend themselves?

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Because they know that they will never be able to create their statist utopia as long a free men retain the right, and the means, to resit them. That is their bottom line.

MikeA on September 30, 2009 at 5:09 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM

Then why didn’t they simply say ‘militia’ .

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Because last time I checked, militia’s have “people” in them.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM

What enumerated power gives the federal government the power to take away arms from the people? Looking forward to commerce clause answer.

WashJeff on September 30, 2009 at 5:13 PM

Put even more simply: If the ban is upheld, the current administration will more than likely move to take your guns and anything else they consider a weapon…… Well…… They’ll TRY ‘n take ‘em.
Molon Labe !
Kenny Solomon
Typical bitter Jewish God-clinging gun owner and barking-mad insane NASCAR fan.
E T Cartman on September 30, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Hey maybe crr6(tneloms) can give us some insight on How they would like to TRY and grab the guns.

Are they going to go with an incremental approach: De facto registration with the elimination of the mythical “Gun-show” loophole, then formal Registration, then CONFISCATION,
Of course each step in response to another “Crisis”

Or is it going to be a one-shot, all at once Gun-Grab.

So crr6(tneloms) what’s the scuttlebutt in the Statist circles, which way are they going to try?

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:26 PM

What enumerated power gives the federal government the power to take away arms from the people? Looking forward to commerce clause answer.

WashJeff on September 30, 2009 at 5:13 PM

No one’s saying they have that right. How did you extrapolate that from the gov. not guaranteeing a right to individually bear arms?

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Now that view might become imposed on all the states. Pretty nuts.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Forget the specifics for a moment. Are you saying that Rights are somehow an imposition? And then it would be nuts to think they’re not?

anuts on September 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM

No one’s saying they have that right. How did you extrapolate that from the gov. not guaranteeing a right to individually bear arms?

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Let me reword that since it cam be read as the government coming into a house and taking one’s guns and that is not my question.

What enumerated power gives the federal government the power to ban people from bearing arms?

I do not care for the 2nd amendment. I think it is redundant since the power to ban or regulate arms was never granted to the federal government by the states.

WashJeff on September 30, 2009 at 5:44 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Well then, if you say the right to bear arms is not a fundamental right, which it clearly is, then what are we to do with all the gun owners? First off, maybe you should address why there are so many firearm owners in the first place, since there is no fundamental right-which is clearly stated in the 2nd ammendment-and all guns should have been confiscated 233 years ago.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Crr6 OR tneloms

Why do you Statists have a problem with people being able to defend themselves?

I use Statists because leftists like to label themselves with multiple terms that all mean the same thing.
Some prefer “Progressive” , some like “Socialist” or “Marxist”, and we can’t forget “Fascist” of course. And there still is that blast from the past “Communist”.
But anyways, Statist avoids all that confusion.

Again, the question is: Why do you Statists have a problem with people being able to defend themselves?

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:51 PM

For the same reasons that, if they had legislatures, cats would dogs having teeth, and dogs would outlaw cats having claws. Of course you know the reason why. An unarmed populace is just so darned much easier to control.

MikeA on September 30, 2009 at 6:20 PM

From a basic reading of history?

Did you know that there were STATE Religions even after the Consitution was Ratified? It was left standing because the Constitution said CONGRESS could not make laws on religion… but did not mention the State.

Yes, and the FIRST AMENDMENT says “CONGRESS”.

The Second does not. How the Supremes took the fact that these amendments did not explicitly apply themselves to states, as an indication that they therefore did not, is impossible for me to understand.

The original text of the Constitution has all sorts of restrictions on States, some on the “United States”, and others that don’t specify to what government the restriction applies.

The Monster on September 30, 2009 at 6:37 PM

V3

If I can offer some advice on firearm selection. Let me expound:

If you are interested in Concealed Carry, the two favorite Automatics are the 1911 and the Glock and the Sig. I personally detest the G, but think of it as the “Honda Accord” of firearms. All are reliable designs, accurate and well made.

If you are into Wheelguns (Revolvers) the M27-8 by Smith and Wesson is simply the finest weapon made. 8 shots of .357 Magnum in either 3 1/2 inch or 5 inch is perfect. For a smaller weapon, the Ruger 101 is very well built and a good piece.

A good, reliable magazine rifle for riots (ooops I mean plinking!) is always reassuring. Either the fine M1A or an AR pattern weapon is good, with a nod to the M1A.

Have fun!

GunRunner on September 30, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Because last time I checked, militia’s have “people” in them.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM

You do realize that, by federal law, all able bodies males over the age of 18 are in the unorganized federal militia.

JIMV on September 30, 2009 at 6:51 PM

As I’m going through the comments, I see some discussion regarding the 2nd Ammendment and abortion. I notice that some mention abortion as a “Right”. It is NOT a Right that is protected by our Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Just because it is not illegal under current law, does not mean that it is a Right. I think that arguments trying to compare an act that is not illegal under current law, by calling it a “Right” to Rights protected by our Constitution and Bill Of Rights are flawed. I’m not trying to get off topic, but it just gets me frustrated when people refer to abortion as a right.

But it is a right, at least to the extent that a woman has the right for the state to not place an “undue burden” on her obtaining an abortion within a certain timeframe. You might disagree with that formulation, but, at least according to the Supreme Court, this is a constitutional right, encapuslated by the words “due process.”

Its not merely something that “isn’t illegal.” A woman has an affirmative right be able to have an abortion without an “undue burden” placed upon her by the state.

Revenant on September 30, 2009 at 6:55 PM

Again, the question is: Why do you Statists have a problem with people being able to defend themselves?

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:51 PM

If your state constitution allows you to have a gun that’s great, go for it. I’m not arguing that guns should be prohibited, I’m just saying the federal government shouldn’t guarantee a right to have one. It should be up to the states.

Let me reword that since it cam be read as the government coming into a house and taking one’s guns and that is not my question.

What enumerated power gives the federal government the power to ban people from bearing arms?

I do not care for the 2nd amendment. I think it is redundant since the power to ban or regulate arms was never granted to the federal government by the states.

WashJeff on September 30, 2009 at 5:44 PM

You’re referring to federal gun control laws? I guess the Commerce Clause would apply. Frankly I’m not particularly passionate on that issue, I think states should be able to regulate or not regulate guns as they see fit, it doesn’t really need to be a federal issue.

Forget the specifics for a moment. Are you saying that Rights are somehow an imposition? And then it would be nuts to think they’re not?

anuts on September 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Your side frequently refers to gay rights as an “imposition”. Regardless of that, your interpretation is an imposition in a sense that it prohibits popularly elected legislatures from enacting gun-control statutes in good faith. Why not let the states decide it?

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 6:57 PM

The reality is as cliche as it sounds that when you ban em the only ones who will have them will be the criminals . Not very smart sherlock.

CWforFreedom on September 30, 2009 at 7:20 PM

Juno77 on September 30, 2009

Notice Juno –they do not answer. The naivete of these blowhards is something.

CWforFreedom on September 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM

For a smaller weapon, the Ruger 101 is very well built and a good piece.

Yes, an excellent choice. Only 5 shots, but that provides a slim profile. Really wish the wife would have used it the other night to blow the possum off of the table on our front porch, but she grabbed the .22 instead.

I think states should be able to regulate or not regulate guns as they see fit, it doesn’t really need to be a federal issue.
crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Illinois Constitution

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

The people in Illinois have the right to keep and bear arms. It shall not be infringed. How is a local handgun ban not an infringement?

CBP on September 30, 2009 at 7:23 PM

On this I agree with you WashJeff. Incorporation might be nice to secure a victory against gun control but it also works against classic federalism.

Chaz706 on September 30, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Really? Does that apply to the 1st amendment? Is that one controlled by the states? What about the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th? Those don’t apply to all states?

darwin-t on September 30, 2009 at 7:24 PM

Heh. Yeah. I think most of them are ignorant as to the legal concepts they’re arguing anyway, so they’re not even aware of their own hypocrisy.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 1:38 PM

A fifth grader can understand the concept that; the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. A fifth grader can understand the concept that; 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. Maybe you should visit “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader” and be made fun of by 10 year olds if you can’t understand these concepts.
You and those of you “opinion” are the hypocrites who can’t read 5th grade english. You should be ashamed.

nelsonknows on September 30, 2009 at 7:30 PM

Your side frequently refers to gay rights as an “imposition”.

If this is in reference to marriage, gays have equal rights in the same manner that straights do. It is argued (and quite effectively in my estimation) what some gays are attempting to impose is a special situation that allows for them to legally change the definition of a religious institution through either a) judicial activism or b) legislatively. Both have profound Constitutional rammifications. Another thing to consider is we are now comparing Rights from a Constitutionally enumerated framework (Amendment II) and ‘rights’ regarding marriage. Where are these ‘rights’ enumerated and what do they say? I think apples and oranges are applicable in this setting.

Regardless of that, your interpretation is an imposition in a sense that it prohibits popularly elected legislatures from enacting gun-control statutes in good faith.

Not so. I am supporting the republican (small “r” as defined by Article IV section 4, US Constitution) notion of law and Rights. It is exactly the tyranny of man that imposes his will over law. I am against this. The language in the above quote is the language of democracies. We are a nation of laws and therefore a republic.

Why not let the states decide it?

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 6:57 PM

They did by virtue of entering the Union. It’s a done deal per each states’ constitution by promising republicanism and by adhering to Amendments IX and Amendment X of the US Constitution.

anuts on September 30, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Then why didn’t they simply say ‘militia’ .

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:11 PM

I could ask you the reverse. If it were clearly to protect just the “individual”, why not simply say that? Why the mention of “militia”?

Notice Juno –they do not answer. The naivete of these blowhards is something.

CWforFreedom on September 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Read the thread, I and others have engaged him numerous times. Frankly he’s one of the least informed posters in the discussion so we’ve been charitable in doing so. He’s contributed little more than repeatedly posting the text of the 2nd amendment.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Why do you Statists have a problem with people being able to defend themselves?

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Because they know that they will never be able to create their statist utopia as long a free men retain the right, and the means, to resit them. That is their bottom line.

MikeA on September 30, 2009 at 5:09 PM

You’re calling me a statist? Based on what? Me explaining crr6′s claims about interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

I hope you understand that there are several issues here: a) interpretation of the Constitution, b) what you would *like* the Constitution to say (for example, some people want to get rid of the 2nd amendment, and some people want to add a marriage amendment), c) and what you think is good legislative policy as a separate matter from Constitutional rights.

I was only talking about a), and I gave my interpretation above (4:46 PM), explaining that I’m uncertain about it.

As far as c) goes, you seem to be implying that I think increased gun control leads to less crime. I don’t think that.

How this translates to me being a statist I do not understand.

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 7:49 PM

Notice Juno –they do not answer. The naivete of these blowhards is something.

CWforFreedom on September 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Scroll up. I answered Juno directly many times.

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 7:50 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 6:57 PM

You must support States or Counties or Cities having the right to conduct Slavery, or ban women and black people from voting, or your right to even post on this blog; after all, with your line of reasoning, the States should be able to ban women, blacks, and those from 18-20 from voting or ban whomever the State wishes from voting. With your logic, States or Cities have the right to have slaves because the States don’t have to follow the U.S. Constitution. With your logic, I could cut off your internet connection, the Mayor, County Commission, the Governor, could do so also.
You don’t get it, do you, and my posting won’t light any spark of understanding in your pea brain.
Maybe you will understand THIS; my rights were CONFIRMED to me the minute I drew my first breath, neither you, the Scotus, or the Federal and State’s Government will take those rights from me, they are NOT debatable and this includes my right to keep and bear arms.
You and your kind had better think LONG and HARD about attempting to further violate the Constitution because you never know when you will push 26 million veterans and over 100 million gun owners to the point that we will no longer stand for tyranny. You NOR the Federal or State’s government won’t be able to stop us, if you push any farther.

nelsonknows on September 30, 2009 at 7:56 PM

Can you explain how criminals have guns in places where they are banned?

Juno77 on September 30, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Because criminals don’t adhere to bans? What did I say that made you believe that I didn’t think that?

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 7:59 PM

C’mon folks, leftists attempt to use whatever is “convenient” to try to base an argument, FACTS never enter the picture.
I highly doubt that any of those who oppose the 2nd Amendment could pass the Citizenship test (which, by the way, has 8 WRONG answers on the answer sheet) This would laughable if it weren’t for the fact that the SAME Constitution, they want to deride, protects THEIR right to vote.

nelsonknows on September 30, 2009 at 8:04 PM

nelsonknows on September 30, 2009 at 7:56 PM

You seem upset.

All of the Constitutional rights you referred to have been applied to the States except for the “right to bear arms”, and I agree with this, indeed it was fellow liberals like me who created and pushed the Incorporation Doctrine while conservatives like you opposed it so you could

conduct Slavery, or ban women and black people from voting,

in the name of “states rights”. So think long and hard about that. You are the tyrants.

I

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 8:05 PM

Maybe I should go back to teaching the Constitution and high school history, apparently this country NEEDS teachers that can actually READ and UNDERTAND simple 5th grade english!

nelsonknows on September 30, 2009 at 8:08 PM

apparently this country NEEDS teachers that can actually READ and UNDERTAND simple 5th grade english!

nelsonknows on September 30, 2009 at 8:08 PM

Yes. You clearly “undertand” simple english very well.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 8:09 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 6:57 PM

You’re referring to federal gun control laws? I guess the Commerce Clause would apply. Frankly I’m not particularly passionate on that issue, I think states should be able to regulate or not regulate guns as they see fit, it doesn’t really need to be a federal issue.

That I agree with. Federal government stay out of the gun regulation business. If the state wants to regulate or ban guns, as long is it does not violates the state’s constitution, go ahead.

With regards to the Chicago law that is this thread’s story, I think the Chicago ban violates the IL constitution.

WashJeff on September 30, 2009 at 8:10 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Because the states don’t need to decide it, it isn’t a states’ rights issue; the right to bear arms is a right guaranteed to all citizens regardless. Also, legislatures don’t get to pass laws to “control” an amendment.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 8:15 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 8:05 PM

Save your propaganda for those who don’t know junior high history. your facts are not only skewed, you blatantly lie.
Democrats supported slavery and Republicans eliminated that disgusting institution. As for Women’s Suffrage, it like the Civil Rights Act was filibustered by Democrats
Move on, you are out of your league.

nelsonknows on September 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 6:57 PM

No, the commerce clause doesn’t apply, the commerce clause is there to promote or “make regular” commerce between states, not arbitrarily regulate it. All you are doing is condoning mis-applying one amendment to negate another.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 8:18 PM

Democrats supported slavery and Republicans eliminated that disgusting institution. As for Women’s Suffrage, it like the Civil Rights Act was filibustered by Democrats
Move on, you are out of your league.

nelsonknows on September 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM

You’re a former history teacher? That’s sad. I guess I’ll have to give you a lesson.

Notice the “states rights” chorus was recited by Democrats until the mid 1960′s or so, and then it became primarily espoused by Republicans. Why do you think that is?

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 8:18 PM

indeed it was fellow liberals like me who created and pushed the Incorporation Doctrine while conservatives like you opposed it so you could

conduct Slavery, or ban women and black people from voting,

in the name of “states rights”. So think long and hard about that. You are the tyrants.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 8:05 PM

Without you realizing it, you are actually regressing into this tyranny regardless of who started and/or opposed back before we were alive. And I don’t believe that you would willingly support such a move. Please, check your premise with regards to Amendments IX and X.

Strict adherence to Rule of law is without tyranny. Tyranny only enters upon breach and thus becomes Rule of Man. Law does not demand slaves; man does.

anuts on September 30, 2009 at 8:19 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 8:05 PM

Once again you avoid the argument, the states don’t need to apply the amendment, it is guaranteed to all people. And it was the Democrats who practiced slavery and denied women and blacks suffrage.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Because the states don’t need to decide it, it isn’t a states’ rights issue; the right to bear arms is a right guaranteed to all citizens regardless.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Not according to previous case law. The court has held before that the second amendment only applies to the federal government, not the states (in Presser v.Illinois and Miller v. Texas).

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 8:21 PM

You know, I think people try too hard to look at the legal context of the words and ignore what was actually taking place at that point of time in history. Americans had fought the British for our independence and we won. What were the tools that were used to win the war. One was the press, or publications that were distributed. The press helped to spread information and get people involved in what was going on. The press got people fired up, on both sides of the issue actually. The other thing that helped win the was was WEAPONS. Rifles, swords, pistols, cannon, and ammunition. Private citizens owned these. Weapons were necessary for survival in those times, and they served their purpose when used in acts of war, by citizens who banded together and fought against the British, either as militia men or as part of the regular army.

So we have two tools that were used in the War of Independence, the press and weapons. Why is it such a hard stretch of the imagination to understand why the Bill of Rights included Freedom of Speech and the Press and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as the first two amendments to the Constitution. They were and are important tools against tyranny. Our founding fathers understood their importance and wrote them down and made them our laws.

The militia are men, private citizens. We own the guns, we care for them and know how to use them. They are by our side whether we need to use them to kill a possum on our front porch, defend our home against invaders, or just have them so the politicians in Washington understand that we the people hold the power.

There should be no question as to whether or not we hold the right to keep and bear arms. The article above notes “44 state constitutions already enshrine gun rights.” It is an important check against our governments, as powerful as the right to come onto the internet and state our positions, to address our congressmen, or print an article in the newspaper.

CBP on September 30, 2009 at 8:24 PM

And it was the Democrats who practiced slavery and denied women and blacks suffrage.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 8:21 PM

This line never flies outside of HA. After the Democrats began broadly supporting the civil rights agenda under Johnson, the parties pretty much switched constituencies. The southern racists who opposed reform became Republican and northern liberals and intellectuals became Democrats. In short, the racist Democrats of the past are the Republicans of today. Of course you probably know this, and are just choosing to argue dishonestly.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 8:24 PM

The States agreed to incorporation by having 3/4 sign off on Amendment 14. Pesky thing, that Amending process, requiring the States to sign-off on things. If the States didn’t want those protections incorporated then they shouldn’t have signed off on the thing, no?

ajacksonian on September 30, 2009 at 8:25 PM

If the state wants to regulate or ban guns, as long is it does not violates the state’s constitution, go ahead.

WashJeff on September 30, 2009 at 8:10 PM

Admittedly, there is certainly legal merit for states’ regulation thereof. However, an outright ban would be a violation.

anuts on September 30, 2009 at 8:26 PM

. If the States didn’t want those protections incorporated then they shouldn’t have signed off on the thing, no?

ajacksonian on September 30, 2009 at 8:25 PM

Conservatives will argue that the 14th amendment is unconstitutional because of the way it was ratified. The South was under military rule and the North refused to bring back democracy unless the Southern states ratified the 14th amendment.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 8:31 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 8:21 PM

And the court was wrong, just like the were in Plessy vs Ferguson, Koramatsu vs. U.S or Kelo vs. New London. That is why the court is hearing this law again

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 8:36 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Really? Then how come the percentage of Repubs for the civil rights and voting rights was over 90% and Dems was only 60%?

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 8:38 PM

I guess I need to teach some on this blog how to actually READ the Constitution. This normally starts in 5th grade so this is beneath my pay grade.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
This means that if something is NOT SPECIFICALLY NAMED in the Constitution or one of the Amendments as a right confirmed to the PEOPLE or a POWER GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it is confirmed to the States and to the people.
If powers are NOT granted SPECIFICALLY to the Federal Government in ANY of the Articles or Amendments, THOSE are STATE’S RIGHTS.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by the Federal Government and those rights are protected from violation by ANYONE and also confirmed by the 14th Amendment; “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”. This prohibition is ALSO placed on counties and cities because these entities are parts of the STATE and not autonomous from the State.
As I’ve posted before, this is so simple to understand that 5th graders get it.

nelsonknows on September 30, 2009 at 8:39 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 8:18 PM

WHO filibustered the civil rights act for 7 years? WHO? Democrats? What person’s filibuster was broken in 1964? You mean Robert Byrd, current President Pro Tempore of the Senate?
The day YOU give anyone a history lesson will mean you are the last person on the planet.
Give it up and crawl back in your hole.

nelsonknows on September 30, 2009 at 8:48 PM

Nelson,

I think we need a flowchart here.

So to summarize: I don’t know whether to interpret the text on its own or in the context of the original intent, and regardless of which I choose I’m not 100% sure of the answer that that technique would use. I’m sorry that I’m not sure about this, but not that sorry because most constitutional scholars are not 100% certain either, and I’m not even a constitutional scholar.

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Some people who have very stong opinions on this are very unsure of themselves.

CBP on September 30, 2009 at 8:51 PM

So to summarize: I don’t know whether to interpret the text on its own or in the context of the original intent…

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 4:46 PM

I just saw this. Has it ever occurred to you that the two are one in the same? I don’t know if you realize, but a lot of thought and time went in to writing the document. If the context of the original intent was different, Madison would have certainly chose other words.

anuts on September 30, 2009 at 8:58 PM

Some people who have very stong opinions on this are very unsure of themselves.

CBP on September 30, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Um, strong opinions on what?

I don’t have strong opinions on gun control. I am interested in constitutional interpretation, but I’m not sure what the best interpretive strategy is in general, and I’m not sure what the best interpretation is in this case.

I do (strongly) think that Juno said all sorts of ridiculous things in this thread in response to crr6, and claimed that statements were contradictory when they were not. I also explained what I thought was crr6′s position, which seemed reasonable even if it’s wrong.

What point are you trying to make?

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Really? Then how come the percentage of Repubs for the civil rights and voting rights was over 90% and Dems was only 60%?

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 8:38 PM

Because the shift of constituencies wasn’t complete yet. The Southern Strategy didn’t result in a Southern GOP and a northern Democratic party until the late 60′s or even the early 70′s.

WHO filibustered the civil rights act for 7 years? WHO? Democrats? What person’s filibuster was broken in 1964? You mean Robert Byrd, current President Pro Tempore of the Senate?
The day YOU give anyone a history lesson will mean you are the last person on the planet.
Give it up and crawl back in your hole.

nelsonknows on September 30, 2009 at 8:48 PM

Yes. Southern, conservative dems filibustered the civil rights act. I was waiting for you to bring up Byrd. He has liberalized with the Democratic party. Why don’t you explain Jesse Helms? He was a democrat who switched to the Republican side because of civil rights, and he was a solid Republican until his death. Helms demonstrates my point perfectly. The racist Democrats of the 1960′s are the Republicans of today. Get it now?

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:03 PM

That is why the court is hearing this law again

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 8:36 PM

Errr ok. That’s great. But what you said earlier…

it isn’t a states’ rights issue; the right to bear arms is a right guaranteed to all citizens regardless.

is patently false. As of right now, the 2nd amendment right only applies to federal jurisdictions like Washington D.C. and the territories. Do you understand that now?

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:06 PM

Has it ever occurred to you that the two are one in the same? I don’t know if you realize, but a lot of thought and time went in to writing the document. If the context of the original intent was different, Madison would have certainly chose other words.

anuts on September 30, 2009 at 8:58 PM

The two may be one and the same, but that doesn’t necessarily help me figure out what the answer is, because I don’t know for sure what the plain meaning is and I don’t know for sure what the original intent was.

If I give you some text that seems ambiguous to you, and tell you an ambiguous story about the author’s intent, does telling you that the plain meaning and author’s intent are one and the same help you figure out the right answer? Not really.

I told you what I think the plain meaning is, and what I think the original intent was. How can I apply the statement that they are one and the same to help me arrive at an answer?

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by the Federal Government and those rights are protected from violation by ANYONE and also confirmed by the 14th Amendment; “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”.
nelsonknows on September 30, 2009 at 8:39 PM

As of now, this is simply untrue, and if it were true the case that is the subject of this thread wouldn’t be necessary. The 2nd amendment has NOT been applied to the states through the 14th amendment yet. If you think it should be then that’s just terrific and you might get your wish soon, but as of now the second amendment is NOT binding upon the states.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM

Why don’t you explain Jesse Helms? He was a democrat who switched to the Republican side because of civil rights, and he was a solid Republican until his death. Helms demonstrates my point perfectly. The racist Democrats of the 1960’s are the Republicans of today. Get it now?

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:03 PM

You forgot Strom Thurmond.

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM

You forgot Strom Thurmond.

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM

Yes, that’s another example.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:11 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:06 PM

Oh I understand perfectly,you are using the courts to overturn a plainly written constitutional right that applies to everyone. Where does it say that it specifically applies to Federal justictions or territories?

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:03 PM

Then how come Republicans didn’t take back the house until 1994?

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 9:12 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM

You lying, evasive little thug, we have already explained that this does not need to be interpreted or applied by the states because it is plainly written in the Consitution as a right that applies to everyone. The only reason it is untrue in your eyes is because leftist judges have unconstitutionally invalidated a constitutional amendment.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 9:16 PM

Oh I understand perfectly,you are using the courts to overturn a plainly written constitutional right that applies to everyone. Where does it say that it specifically applies to Federal justictions or territories?

huh? It never applied to everyone and it never has. The case law I referred to didn’t “overturn” anything, it affirmed the previous rule. The 2nd amendment has never been applicable to the states before. You really are absolutely clueless.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:18 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:03 PM

Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond opposed the civil rights act on the grounds that it would be misapplied to opportunist politicians to give special favors to groups in exchange for votes, which it did. Byrd opposed the voting rights and civil rights acts because he was a former Klansman.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 9:19 PM

The two may be one and the same, but that doesn’t necessarily help me figure out what the answer is, because I don’t know for sure what the plain meaning is and I don’t know for sure what the original intent was.
tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM

Do you even know what the question is?

As I noted in my post at 7:23, the Illinois Consitution states this: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

The city of Chicago is banning guns. How is that legal, either under the US Constitution or the Illinois Constitution?

CBP on September 30, 2009 at 9:20 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:18 PM

It has always applied to everyone, it says so plainly in the Constitution. Your side is the one twisting what is plainly written to say that it doesn’t. Why is it in there then? I may be clueless to you, but I can read.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 9:21 PM

You lying, evasive little thug, we have already explained that this does not need to be interpreted or applied by the states because it is plainly written in the Consitution as a right that applies to everyone.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 9:16 PM

LOL. You really are a moron. Since the 1830′s at least the Bill of Rights has been seen as a restriction on the federal government, but not on the state government.

The only reason it is untrue in your eyes is because leftist judges have unconstitutionally invalidated a constitutional amendment.

This is even dumber than your first sentence. It’s traditionally been “leftist” judges who have applied the Bill of Rights to the states through the Incorporation Doctrine, while conservative judges have protested saying this violates “states rights”. Please please please read up on the issue before posting further. I’m tiring of correcting you.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:23 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:18 PM

You are avoiding the argument again, it doesn’t need to be applied to the states or by the states because it is a constitutional right afforded to everyone. Get it. Of course you do, that is why you need the courts to overturn it.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 9:24 PM

You are avoiding the argument again, it doesn’t need to be applied to the states or by the states because it is a constitutional right afforded to everyone. Get it. Of course you do, that is why you need the courts to overturn it.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 9:24 PM

There’s something wrong with your brain.

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Do you even know what the question is?

The question I was referring to was whether the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I think that was clear from what I wrote.

The city of Chicago is banning guns. How is that legal, either under the US Constitution or the Illinois Constitution?

CBP on September 30, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Seems unconstitutional to me according to the Illinois Constitution. As I stated, I’m not sure whether it’s unconstitutional according to the US Constitution, but that should be answered by the Supreme Court pretty soon.

What is it exactly that you’re arguing with me over?

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 9:28 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:23 PM

Of course they are restrictions on the Federal government, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not by the federal government, nor by state or municipal governments it says so plainly; However, you say it is not, who is the moron? It has been stated before that rights that are specifically inherent to all citizens do not need to be specifically applied or interpreted by the states, the right to keep and bear arms for example, or the rights to free speech, freedom of religion and assembly for example. You keep avoiding this point.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM

Of course they are restrictions on the Federal government, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not by the federal government, nor by state or municipal governments it says so plainly; However, you say it is not, who is the moron? It has been stated before that rights that are specifically inherent to all citizens do not need to be specifically applied or interpreted by the states, the right to keep and bear arms for example, or the rights to free speech, freedom of religion and assembly for example. You keep avoiding this point.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM

No. The Bill of Rights prevented the FEDERAL government from infringing on those rights, but it wasn’t binding on the states. States were free to guarantee their own rights in state constitutions. Most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states based on the 14th amendment through the Incorporation Doctrine within the last 70-80 years (such as 1st amendment protections of free speech, religion etc.), but the 2nd amendment never has. Understand now?

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:33 PM

It has been stated before that rights that are specifically inherent to all citizens do not need to be specifically applied or interpreted by the states, the right to keep and bear arms for example, or the rights to free speech, freedom of religion and assembly for example. You keep avoiding this point.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM

Wait, free speech too? How does the Constitution “say so plainly” that states can’t violate the right to free speech?

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 9:35 PM

What is it exactly that you’re arguing with me over?

tneloms on September 30, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Sorry, too many topics flying around here. I’ve been trying to pull all this stuff together from the various posts, and wasn’t sure where you were going. Anyway, I don’t understand your confusion. Via Wiki (not the best source, but quick and easy): “The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens” so to my way of thinking, it still refers to individual rights, since citizens and people are one and the same. A militia is a group of people like you and me banding together. Check out my post at 8:24. I really think people are trying to confuse a very simple issue.

CBP on September 30, 2009 at 9:38 PM

crr6, You are the most disingenous person on this thread. You cherry pick rights that you approve of to be ‘fundamental,’ you argue original intent when it suits your purposes and spew liberal talking points when it doesn’t. Pick a theory and stick with it.

So, are you a secret lobbyist or recruiter for state or citizen militias? Because your absurd interpretations, if followed, would certainly see a huge increase in their ranks if this were the only means by which individuals could bear arms.

Firefly_76 on September 30, 2009 at 9:48 PM

crr6 on September 30, 2009 at 9:33 PM

Yes and the right to bear arms is a Federally protected right.
I told you thug, I understand that it has been mis-applied and that the only laws that states can make or apply under Article X are those not in conflict with constitutional protected rights. The 2nd Amendment is a right guaranteed to all citizens, it is stated as such by using the actual work “right”"

“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

These are inviolate and do not need to be re-interpreted, or redefined by any other government, period. Do you get it. OF course you do as I said before, you are just playing word games until some statist left-wing judge can overturn an amendment from the bench. I know your play book.

That goes for you too tneloms, first amendment rights don’t need to be re-interpreted by anyone else.

celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 9:50 PM

These are inviolate and do not need to be re-interpreted, or redefined by any other government, period.
celtnik on September 30, 2009 at 9:50 PM

But they are, as noted in the first link in the main article, “Separately, 44 state constitutions already enshrine gun rights.” The point that citizens have rights to bearing arms has been reinforced by 44 states. That point was worth repeating when the states passed their constitutions. Can crr6 explain how the gun ban in Chicago is legal under the Illinois Constitution?

CBP on September 30, 2009 at 9:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5