Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
From the story said:
Illinois State Rifle Association has already filed a lawsuit challenging the Chicago ban. They filed the suit within 15 minutes of the high court's ruling.
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/supreme.court.handguns.2.757471.html

It will be interesting to see what laws are challenged and what the anti-gun crowd will do in response. We in Utah are lucky to have very good gun laws and this Supreme Court ruling reinforces our rights and puts our local leaders on notice not to mess with our 2nd amendment rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
This lawsuit will probably be even more important than Heller because it will determine the incorporation of the Second Amendment to states - does 2A apply to states or only to federal government? And it's in Obama's back yard, so gun right may (finally!) become a real topic in the election.

Now, more than ever, it is vital that we elect a president that will maintain a level of balance and integrity in Supreme Court nominees. As evidenced by today's ruling, there are several fine, educated, and patriotic judges on the court. And there are some that clearly are biased and have a very near-sighted understanding of the Constitution and the role of the courts in protecting and defending our rights. There are likely to be 2 and possibly 3 seats on the court appointed in the next presidential terms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
MasLakas said:
From the story said:
Illinois State Rifle Association has already filed a lawsuit challenging the Chicago ban. They filed the suit within 15 minutes of the high court's ruling.
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/supreme.court.handguns.2.757471.html

It will be interesting to see what laws are challenged and what the anti-gun crowd will do in response. We in Utah are lucky to have very good gun laws and this Supreme Court ruling reinforces our rights and puts our local leaders on notice not to mess with our 2nd amendment rights.
AMEN! Maybe they can see justice served and start being able to defend themselves! I see lots more cases like this going on--some may have monetary atachments for violating citizens rights--wouldn't that be a hoot!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
If you haven't seen it yet, be sure to check out Chicago's mayor Daley totally freak out about the Heller case. It is sad and embarrassing, yet mildly amusing to see him get his panties in a ruffle over this. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 2044.story A second video with more freaking out is at the middle left of the page.

Some quotables:
"This decision really places those who are rich and those who are in power [to] always feel safe," Daley said. "Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that's what they're saying."
Says Mayor Daley flanked by armed mobsters/body guards.

He described America as a country of gun-lovers who export their weaponry to neighboring countries like Canada and Mexico, spreading violence to relatively peaceful areas.
Perhaps the good neighbor should move to one of the "relatively peaceful areas" north or south of the border?

"Chicago, like other big cities, has a compelling interest in reducing crime related to firearms," the brief states." Chicago Police Department statistics show that from 2004 to November 2007 there were 43,685 firearms-related violent crimes in the city."
Wow Dick, 25 years of banning guns seems to have worked very well for your city.

"Can you see everyone having guns in their home?!"
I'd sleep a bit better at night if I knew all of my law abiding neighbors were armed. My criminal neighbors are going to have their guns regardless of any ban.

"You think your next door neighbor should have an Uzi? AK-47? Any type of a gun? Do you really believe that? Good luck! But don't call the police if they're shooting an AK-47"
So the mayor is saying the citizens can't rely on the police to defend them from those with illegal guns, yet he insists on refusing them the right to defend themselves. He's already indicated that if their gun ban is shot down, he will jack up taxes to insane levels and higher tens of thousands of police to help curtail the mass bloodshed.

Anyway, this guy makes me sick. Perhaps the only thing a bit comforting is my moral belief that the blood of innocent men will be paid for by the souls of those responsible for their deaths - and Mayor Daley has dirty hands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
As I watched him go off the deep end about this, I really thought he was going to have a heart attack or stroke. The bummer was he did not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
If I were in the press room this is what I would ask:

Why did Chicago ban guns? Why after banning guns are the citizens still scared and the mayor has armed body guards?

Why is there a rash of gun violence already this year? Could it be because there are bad people in Chicago that need to be locked up and good people who need to be able to carry a gun to protect themselves from bad people? Why didn't the city ban bad people?

I can't wait to see the crime statistic in DC this time next year. It makes me want to fly out there and offer free training classes to those that would like to learn how to use a gun for self protection. One neighborhood at a time.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
It is nice to see weapons owner go on the offense. We have been on the defense for so long, the antis are shocked at being attacked. Now is the time with this ruling to go for the rights we have lost. It may take some time to get them back, but we most not stop now. I say attack, attack, attack.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
This one a good one too,

“If they [the U.S. Supreme Court] think that’s the answer … they’re greatly mistaken. Then why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun, and we’ll settle it in the streets if that’s they’re thinking.”
Don't they already do that in Chicago, or did the History Channels Gangland lie to me, isn't it like that in California too? I remember a street shooting in DC when I was younger just outside the store I was in, that was in the streets.

I don't recall anything in current history about a street gun fight in Utah...I could be wrong (not between police and someone, but people against people), we don't have a ban and haven't spiraled into the lawless West...
 
G

·
LEEEEEERRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYY JJJJJJJEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKKIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
Ishpeck said:
LEEEEEERRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYY JJJJJJJEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKKIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
:ROFL: I wonder how many folks will get that? It's nice to know there's at least one other true geek around here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
apollosmith said:
This lawsuit will probably be even more important than Heller because it will determine the incorporation of the Second Amendment to states - does 2A apply to states or only to federal government? And it's in Obama's back yard, so gun right may (finally!) become a real topic in the election.
Oooohhh... that's a *VERY* good point! I've been thinking that soooo many people are backing Obama without being aware of his strong anti-2A opinion. This might finally force his hand and may at least give a lot of voters a real dillemma.

But I'm not sure how we could possibly justify that the 2A only applies to the Feds and not to the States. That would be like saying the 1st only applies to the Feds or the 5th, or any of the others. Could you imagine how ridiculous it would be for someone to actually argue that the 19th Amendment only guaranteed Women to vote in Federal elections and all other elections were up to State decision??? Or if slavery were only outlawed on Federal Land but not on Southern State land??? Obviously that was what the Civil War was about and that view lost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,757 Posts
Ishpeck said:
LEEEEEERRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYY JJJJJJJEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKKIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
:lolbang: :lol3: :ROFL:

For the benighted souls who don't know what that refers to:


Hopefully the attorneys who file these suits will do just a little more planning...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
bane said:
But I'm not sure how we could possibly justify that the 2A only applies to the Feds and not to the States. That would be like saying the 1st only applies to the Feds or the 5th, or any of the others. Could you imagine how ridiculous it would be for someone to actually argue that the 19th Amendment only guaranteed Women to vote in Federal elections and all other elections were up to State decision??? Or if slavery were only outlawed on Federal Land but not on Southern State land??? Obviously that was what the Civil War was about and that view lost.
I'd recommend that you read up on Selective Incorporation. The question only really applies to the amendments 1 through 8. Amendments 11-27, by ratification, have been automatically adopted by the states, so your comparisons to suffrage and slavery above don't really work. But the core Bill or Rights, until as recently as a hundred years ago, almost certainly did NOT apply to the states. Now states do have their own constitutions that typically provided the same protections, but this was not always the case.

The idea of incorporation started after the Civil War with the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868. This amendment was intended to protect constitutional rights of freed slaves in states that would not guarantee them those rights. Some states had laws (and some even state constitutional amendments) that stated that blacks were not citizens and as such had no constitutional rights. Incorporation, as defined in Section 1 of the 14th amendment, was an attempt to guarantee those rights to all Americans - free, slave, black, or white, regardless of what rights the states enumerated. Section 5 of that amendment gave Congress the power to enforce the article - and indirectly, it gave the courts the power to uphold those rights and, in some cases, to designate those rights as incorporated against the states.

Still, the amendments in the Bill or Rights (with the exception of the 10th, which applies to states directly) are only applicable to federal government, unless the Supreme Court rules that the states are to be subject to them. Up until the early 1900's, there was no real clarification as to which of the Bill of Rights applied to states. We've since had several Supreme Court rulings that have declared certain amendments - 1st, 4th, 5th (except right to grand jury indictment), 6th, and half of the 8th - as incorporated. The rest have not yet been incorporated against the states.

In the case of the 2nd amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that the amendment does NOT apply to states. Now they have clarified that it is an individual right, so things might change. The only way for the 2nd amendment to apply to states is for the Supreme Court to say it does. They did not do so in this ruling.

Of interest is Footnote 23 on page 48:
With respect to [the nineteenth-century case of U.S. v.] Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois (1886) and Miller v. Texas (1894) reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
The first sentence clearly indicates that incorporation is probably appropriate for the 2nd amendment (just as it should have been appropriate for the First Amendment in Cruikshank), but the second sentence then references two cases that clarified that the 2nd amendment does NOT apply. My interpretation - Scalia hints that incorporation is the final destination, but doesn't dare go there because it wasn't a question before the court. This argument is strengthened by several references to pre-incorporation cases involving freed-slave rights and the repeated comparisons between the incorporated First Amendment and the unincorporated Second Amendment. A court that believes the Second Amendment is comparable to the hallowed First Amendment is unlikely to leave protection of that right to the mercy of legislative majorities in states and cities.

I know most of this flies in the face of logic and human nature, but it's just how things work. Luckily, almost all state constitutions provide equal and (in most cases) more extensive protections than the second amendment does. The fight now, is to ensure those state constitutions are interpreted the same as the U.S. Constitution now is, as an individual right. We also must to hope for a future case that will finally present the question of incorporation of the second amendment to the Supreme Court. Of note, the next president will almost certainly be appointing one or two justices who will decide this incorporation case.

Sorry for the long rant. This is just so fascinating to me and I have learned A LOT about constitutional rights through studying and writing this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
WOW,

Don't apologize for that, it wasn't a rant in my eyes - it actually shed a whole lot of light on why they think one way and others think another way. I had never heard of incorporation in context with the Constitution, and so now it is a bit scary how easily what just happened could be wiped away with more liberal judges. Or is that possible, can it be overruled down the road by new judges? If it did and they decided to not incorporate it and keep it at a federal level (am I understanding that right?), would we be protected by our state (Utah's) constitution to keep and bear arms?

Thanks again for all that useful info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
L'attente said:
I had never heard of incorporation in context with the Constitution, and so now it is a bit scary how easily what just happened could be wiped away with more liberal judges. Or is that possible, can it be overruled down the road by new judges?
It is VERY rare for the Supreme Court to overrule itself on previous decisions. Of note, Cruikshank is one case where the court changed it's mind. The court originally (1875) decided in the Cruikshank case that the 1st and 2nd amendments do not apply to states, then later (mid 1900's) decided that the 1st amendment does apply. The fact that Scalia points this out is a pretty clear indication that the 2nd amendment statements in Cruikshank are probably moot. Because the other 2A incorporation cases noted (Miller and Presser) both referenced this aspect of Cruikshank, I believe this to be a pretty good indication that the court is in favor of incorporating 2A, or at a minimum, the argument against incorporation has to be different than that provided in the Cruikshank and all derivative cases.

While it's highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would change the 2A from an individual right back to a collective right, the fact that the dissenting opinions were VERY dissenting is scary. The next questions to be answered are should 2A be incorporated and what are reasonable restrictions. I believe these will certainly be answered by the Supreme Court in coming years and the answers to these questions will be more impactful than the Heller decision.

L'attente said:
If it did and they decided to not incorporate it and keep it at a federal level (am I understanding that right?), would we be protected by our state (Utah's) constitution to keep and bear arms?
Yes, we are already protected by the state constitution regardless of incorporation. But so are the folks in Chicago, San Francisco, New York, etc. The fact that local and state courts have been so narrow in their interpretation of these rights is what is allowing Chicago to ban all handguns, regardless of what the Illinois constitution says. Even if 2A does not apply to local and state courts, these courts MUST consider yesterday's decision. And Legislatures and city councils MUST recognize that the Supreme Court of the land has defined these rights as an individual rights. By passing or upholding laws to the contrary is opening the door for litigation and future higher court decisions.

Interestingly, arguing against incorporation (as Chicago has vowed to do) is actually very good for our cause because it is more likely to project a future case to the Supreme Court. But, it will cost millions of dollars for the NRA and others to fight these fights. I, like many of you, am not a huge fan of the NRA, but the lawsuits they are filing are very significant... and not inexpensive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
A lawsuit was filed yesterday in San Francisco. Interestingly, it was by a gay man that claims he needs a handgun to protect himself from hate crimes. PERFECT!

Of note, Mayor Gavin Newsom had this to say:
"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority."
Since when do housing authorities have rights, but the people who live there do not??? :disgusted:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Since when do housing authorities have rights, but the people who live there do not??? :disgusted:
Since it's the federal government/state government paying for it, wouldn't this be the same as that landlord thing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
L'attente said:
Since when do housing authorities have rights, but the people who live there do not??? :disgusted:
Since it's the federal government/state government paying for it, wouldn't this be the same as that landlord thing?
I think you missed my point. Only people can have rights. Governments are granted or delegated powers by the people. The Constitution pretty much does two things - it enumerates (not gives) the rights of the people and defines limitations of government powers. The housing authority cannot have rights. The fact that a mayor of a major city, the legislative head of a government body, does not understand this is pretty scary.

Here's an EXCELLENT write-up about what rights are - http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2 ... s-a-right/
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top