View Full Version : Supreme Court to Rule On Chicago Firearms Ban
Batteriesnare
03-02-2010, 12:09
Found this interesting. Thoughts?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100302/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_guns
Batteriesnare
03-02-2010, 12:13
Video: http://news.yahoo.com/video/local-15749667/18397153#video=18409983
funkfool
03-02-2010, 12:37
For those of you who are able to get podcasts... you can get them here or just read up...
SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/)
Analysis: 2d Amendment extension likely
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/analysis-2d-amendment-extension-likely/)
Lyle Denniston | Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010 11:26 am
Analysis
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.
When the Justices cast their first vote after starting later this week to discuss where to go from here, it appeared that the focus of debate will be how extensive a “right to keep and bear arms” should be spelled out: would it be only some “core right” to have a gun for personal safety, or would it include every variation of that right that could emerge in the future as courts decide specific cases? The liberal wing of the Court appeared to be making a determined effort to hold the expanded Amendment in check, but even the conservatives open to applying the Second Amendment to states, counties and cities seemed ready to concede some — but perhaps fewer — limitations.
Rest of the story: (http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/analysis-2d-amendment-extension-likely/#more-17012)
funkfool
03-02-2010, 12:39
Relocate to Legislation and Politics?
ChunkyMonkey
03-02-2010, 13:31
VERYGREAT news indeed!
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6213VI20100302?type=politicsNews
They are talking about it on NPR, but I haven't been listening as closely as I need/want to. I don't like some of what I've been hearing though.
theGinsue
03-02-2010, 13:53
I fully expect their final decision will be so vague and watered down, like the Heller decision, as to make the entire effort a waste.
not sure how i want to see this go. i like the idea of states being able to decide so MT and TN should have their new laws not affected by the batfe but then we will have to fight on two fronts...state and federal level at a greater extent than we do now. i havent got to read the links or articles since i am on my phone so i may chage my mind here!
newracer
03-02-2010, 17:27
not sure how i want to see this go. i like the idea of states being able to decide so MT and TN should have their new laws not affected by the batfe but then we will have to fight on two fronts...state and federal level at a greater extent than we do now. i havent got to read the links or articles since i am on my phone so i may chage my mind here!
That is a totally different issue, you want this to go against the state, trust me.
SA Friday
03-02-2010, 17:43
I fully expect their final decision will be so vague and watered down, like the Heller decision, as to make the entire effort a waste.
Sorry Ginsue, I totally disagree with your read on the Heller decision. It quantifiably standardized the right to bear arms as an individual right. This also puts the burden on the governing authority to justify why they want to infringe on that right vs the individual having to re-assert their right. This is a pillar ruling. It doesn't look all pretty like paintings on the wall, but without the pillar, there isn't any wall to have. The vagueness was because the didn't want to try to cut throught the field of gun laws out there with a sickle. They wanted to leave it open and let the courts decide where the right of the individual ends and the needs of the society begin. To do this, they wanted the courts to individually address the various laws. It's a surgical approach to roughly 75 years of lack of guidance on this right.
I suspect they will re-edify their stance on the Heller ruling and give some clarification to where they won't tolerate the individual's rights being infringed. Then they will back up and let the surgury continue.
The Supreme Court has taken this approach before. The latest bout of decisions like this stemmed from the 4th ammendment and people's vehicles is a pretty good example. Kennedy coined the phrase "baggage along the way" for this type of approach in the Heller decision. It helps stop the pendelum swinging too far to one side of individual right or social order. It takes longer, but has a more stable impact on the society as a whole.
GunTroll
03-02-2010, 20:10
not sure how i want to see this go. i like the idea of states being able to decide so MT and TN should have their new laws not affected by the batfe but then we will have to fight on two fronts...state and federal level at a greater extent than we do now. i havent got to read the links or articles since i am on my phone so i may chage my mind here!
BATF acts like TN's new law didn't even pass except for the nasty letter they sent out reminding all FFL's within the state to ignore TN's HB 1796 and comply with FED laws. I'm very curious how this will play out. I just got my 01 FFL yesterday and would love to keep it while being able to take advantage of TN's new gun law. We will see. For now I'm following FED guidelines.
It helps stop the pendelum swinging too far to one side of individual right or social order.
For me the pendulum has never swung too far on the side of individual rights, certainly it hasn't since Franklin Roosevelt became President. America's Bill of Rights are designed to be individual rights, not rights of government. Free speech, freedom of religion, Keep and bear arms, right to a fair trial with a lawyer, etc. are all individual rights. It is about time that in Heller the court finally made that clear.
Europe always tries to balance the needs of society with individual rights, which is why their freedom of speech and right to bear arms is virtually non-existent. What is great about America is that it is the first country in the world to say that individual rights outweigh the rights of society. That unless the individual is violating someone else's rights, the state cannot stop the individual from exercising those rights. Of course, over time these rights have eroded and America is not as great as it once was. It is good to see the Supreme Court once again recognizing these individual rights, as I hope they do when they make their decision in this case.
funkfool
03-03-2010, 15:52
For thouse of you who are so inclined...
The SCOTUS WiKi for this case...
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
Or - for those of you with an excessive amount of free time, I should say...
funkfool
03-03-2010, 16:00
One can learn a great deal from filings of this nature:
Especially telling are these Amicus Brief filings:
In Support of Respondents
Brief for the Anti-Defamation League (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/08-1521_amicus-Anti-Defamation.pdf)
Brief for Professors of Criminal Justice (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/08-1521_amicus-Criminal-Justice-Profs.pdf)
Brief for 34 Professional Historians and Legal Historians (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/08-1521_amicus%20Legal%20Historians.pdf)
Brief for the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCuEducationalFund.pdf)
Brief for the Villages of Winnetka and Skokie, Illinois, the City of Evanston, Illinois, the Illinois Municipal League, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCu3Citiesand2MunicipalOrgs.pdf)
Brief for American Cities, Cook County, Illinois, and Police Chiefs (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCuAmeCitiesCookCntyandPoliceChief s.pdf)
Brief for Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and District Attorneys (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCuAPA.pdf)
Brief for the Board of Education of the City of Chicago, the Institute of Medicine of Chicago, Wayman African Methodist Episcopal Church of Chicago, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Legal Community Against Violence, Violence Policy Center, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, Freedom States Alliance, Connecticut Against Gun Violence, Maine Citizens Against Gun Violence, Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort Educational Fund, and Gunfreekids.Org (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCu14AntiGunGrps.pdf)
Brief of Law Professor and Students (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCuLawProfsandStudentsmotion.pdf)
Brief for Historians and Legal Scholars (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCuHistandLegScholars.pdf)
Brief for English/Early American Historians (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCuEnglishHistoriansnew.pdf)
Brief for Historians on Early American Legal, Constitutional and Pennsylvania History (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCuEarlyAmeLegConstandPAHistorians .pdf)
Brief for Organizations Committed to Protecting the Pubic's Health, Safety, and Well-Being (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCuOCPPHSWB.pdf)
Brief for the States of Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCu3States.pdf)
Brief for the United States Conference of Mayors (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCuUSConfofMayors.pdf)
Brief for Representatives Carolyn McCarthy, Mike Quigley, and 53 Other Congress Members of the United States Congress (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCu2Repsand53CongressMembers.pdf)
Brief for the Oak Park Citizens Committee for Handgun Control (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCuOakParkCitizensCmmt.pdf)
You can crack these babies open and find out who DOES NOT support gun rights...
And this really has more than just the 2nd Amendment as its foundation:
Whether the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state and local governments from exercising their police powers to prohibit the possession of handguns based on a judgment that these firearms are unreasonably likely to be misused by criminals.
SA Friday
03-03-2010, 21:35
For me the pendulum has never swung too far on the side of individual rights, certainly it hasn't since Franklin Roosevelt became President. America's Bill of Rights are designed to be individual rights, not rights of government. Free speech, freedom of religion, Keep and bear arms, right to a fair trial with a lawyer, etc. are all individual rights. It is about time that in Heller the court finally made that clear.
Europe always tries to balance the needs of society with individual rights, which is why their freedom of speech and right to bear arms is virtually non-existent. What is great about America is that it is the first country in the world to say that individual rights outweigh the rights of society. That unless the individual is violating someone else's rights, the state cannot stop the individual from exercising those rights. Of course, over time these rights have eroded and America is not as great as it once was. It is good to see the Supreme Court once again recognizing these individual rights, as I hope they do when they make their decision in this case.
I don't want to start another arguement on the site. Really, I don't. I've had more than a couple lately on this subject. But, let me throw a couple of hypotheticals out there.
The 4th ammendment, in the strictest interpretation of the ammendment leaning towards individual rights would disallow any LE from entering a residence without a warrant, period. Very heavy on the individual rights. Let's pretend that's reality. Now, the cops are chasing an armed child rapist and murderer. Bad guy bails out of his car and runs into your house. You are not home but your wife and daughter are. The cops under this interpretation couldn't enter the residence, even though it's not the bad guy's house, because it's a residence and that requires a warrant.
The 1st ammendment, in the stricest interpretation of the ammendment leaning towards individual rights would disallow any recourse civil or criminal against someone defacing your integrety. Let's pretend that's reality. Now, your brother-in-law hates your guts and just so happens to be a journalist. He embellishes a story that you like to sexually molest pre-teen aged boys, and finds a neighbor kid to say you buggered him. He prints the story.
The 5th ammendment, in the strictest interpretation of the ammendment leaning towards individual rights would disallow at least half of the currently admissable confessions scenarios legal today. So, a child molester kidnaps, rapes, and kills your kid. During his arrest, he's Mirandized and requests a lawyer. During the drive to the police station, he blurts out that he did it all and enjoyed every minute of it. The confession never even see's the inside of the court.
These are just off the top of my head. They are all examples of how social order does come into play in regards to individual rights. I wish no ill will to your family in the scenarios. I just wrote them like that to try to illustrate the scenarios. It sometimes helps people see how social order affects them if it's discussed in terms of ownership.
European's governments really have nothing to do with this discussion. They all have different governments and different systems. Most of them have never had any of the freedoms we do, and most have fluxuated from one system of government to another multiple times over their existences. Essentially, they come from a different place in their views of government than we do.
68Charger
03-03-2010, 22:06
BATF acts like TN's new law didn't even pass except for the nasty letter they sent out reminding all FFL's within the state to ignore TN's HB 1796 and comply with FED laws. I'm very curious how this will play out. I just got my 01 FFL yesterday and would love to keep it while being able to take advantage of TN's new gun law. We will see. For now I'm following FED guidelines.
I'm not a lawyer (and I don't play one on tv), but as I see it, the first F in "FFL" is where you may get in trouble... if you have applied for a FFL, you've entered into an agreement with the Federal gov't.. so you have to abide by that.. if you didn't have an FFL, then you'd have to abide only by TN's law as a citizen, and would have better legal standing to ignore the Feds... according to TN's HB 1796, they would have no jurisdiction... but since you applied for the FFL, you've given them jurisdiction over your business. just something to think about..
BATF acts like TN's new law didn't even pass except for the nasty letter they sent out reminding all FFL's within the state to ignore TN's HB 1796 and comply with FED laws. I'm very curious how this will play out. I just got my 01 FFL yesterday and would love to keep it while being able to take advantage of TN's new gun law. We will see. For now I'm following FED guidelines.
yeah I have read about the letters and it really bothers me that the FED is overstepping their boundaries with this. State laws apply when there is no interstate commerce so the FED should have no jurisdiction.
wasn't there something in effect or at least proposed that would put the agents in jail for enforcing such a rule?
I'm not a lawyer, but as I see it, the first F in "FFL" is where you may get in trouble... if you have applied for a FFL, you've entered into an agreement with the Federal gov't.. so you have to abide by that.. if you didn't have an FFL, then you'd have to abide only by TN's law as a citizen, and would have better legal standing to ignore the Feds... according to TN's HB 1796, they would have no jurisdiction... but since you applied for the FFL, you've given them jurisdiction over your business. just something to think about..
I have wondered about this as well and was hoping Tn and NT would be in the works for a state issued gun dealers license. then there is no FFL to revoke, no FFL enforcement and no knowledge of the FFL to the FEDs (as long as the state didn't supply that information). only limit would be that state dealer would only be allowed to sell in state.
68Charger
03-03-2010, 22:29
I have wondered about this as well and was hoping Tn and NT would be in the works for a state issued gun dealers license. then there is no FFL to revoke, no FFL enforcement and no knowledge of the FFL to the FEDs (as long as the state didn't supply that information). only limit would be that state dealer would only be allowed to sell in state.
I thought the nature of the laws in question was such that as long as it was not the jurisdiction of the Feds, then there would be NO regulation... so why would they need licensing for it?
it's already legal for you to build a firearm from scratch for your own use... the BATFE only has jurisdiction if you build it with intent to sell- then you're a "manufacturer"... or somehow if it's an NFA item (was never sure how that one worked) this law would theoretically remove that jurisdiction on any transaction between citizens within the state.. it would appear from the letter received by FFLs in TN would indicate the BATFE is asserting their authority built within the FFL agreement..
GunTroll
03-04-2010, 19:53
I'm not a lawyer (and I don't play one on tv), but as I see it, the first F in "FFL" is where you may get in trouble... if you have applied for a FFL, you've entered into an agreement with the Federal gov't.. so you have to abide by that.. if you didn't have an FFL, then you'd have to abide only by TN's law as a citizen, and would have better legal standing to ignore the Feds... according to TN's HB 1796, they would have no jurisdiction... but since you applied for the FFL, you've given them jurisdiction over your business. just something to think about..
True. Thats my understanding as well.
Not about my FFL.......To me this case seems a double edge sword so to speak. Just as Sniper7 implied. If the states pass a law or even more locally the city/county and I believe (we) as constitutionally minded people, should hold them over fed laws. That being said.....individual rights such as the second should not be infringed on by the fed/state/city/county laws. I also am not a lawyer and don't even want to try to understand the complex issues that lawyers and judges deal with. Laws are fine and all but if one word is missing, and I mean one, it leaves it up to interpretation and that's where we are today. Sucks!
The 4th ammendment, in the strictest interpretation of the ammendment leaning towards individual rights would disallow any LE from entering a residence without a warrant, period. Very heavy on the individual rights. Let's pretend that's reality. Now, the cops are chasing an armed child rapist and murderer. Bad guy bails out of his car and runs into your house. You are not home but your wife and daughter are. The cops under this interpretation couldn't enter the residence, even though it's not the bad guy's house, because it's a residence and that requires a warrant.
The 1st ammendment, in the stricest interpretation of the ammendment leaning towards individual rights would disallow any recourse civil or criminal against someone defacing your integrety. Let's pretend that's reality. Now, your brother-in-law hates your guts and just so happens to be a journalist. He embellishes a story that you like to sexually molest pre-teen aged boys, and finds a neighbor kid to say you buggered him. He prints the story.
You are mixing apples and oranges here, your examples have nothing to do with a pro-individual reading of the Bill of Rights. The text of the 4th amendment says that there can be no "unreasonable searches". I don't think anyone would interpret the 4th amendment to say that a cop chasing an armed murderer could not search a house the murderer went into. Note that the 2nd amendment does not say the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be unreasonably infringed". It says the right "shall not be infringed". Yet you for some reason want to subject our 2nd amendment right to some reasonability standard.
Your 1st amendment example is wrong because the bill of rights only restrains government--it in no way protects you against other citizens. Your non-governmental employer can restrict your right of free speech while at work--that is not a constitutional issue as the 1st amendment only protects you against the government infringing your right to speak. There is no protection from private citizen libel or slander in the first amendment.
I could go on through your other examples (I see nothing in the text of the 5th amendment that says anything about extraordinary protections, it only says that the accused are entitled to due process of law), but it really doesn't apply to my point that what makes America great and different from places like Europe is that it holds the rights of individuals paramount.
A well known gun rights lawyer made my point much better than I did:
"… [M]any gun owners readily concede that their right to keep and bear arms is “not absolute” and is subject to “reasonable” regulation. This concession to moderation or reasonableness is fatal to the right. Yes, there are people who should not have guns. However, the point of the Second Amendment is precisely to deny government the power to decide who those people are, just as the point of the First Amendment is to deny government the power to decide what you may read and hear. Rights are not reasonable, and are not to be made reasonable, because government itself is not reason; it is force." - Jeff Snyder (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/rights-without-exceptions-2/)
SA Friday
03-05-2010, 14:30
Eow, my examples are nothing more than hypotheticals showing a need for some restriction on individual rights. You are reading too much into it.
I was just pointing out that your examples don't support your point. Nothing more.
SA Friday
03-05-2010, 20:55
I was just pointing out that your examples don't support your point. Nothing more.
Then you missed something as they do. Lets just agree to disagree on this one.
I hope this turns out in the peoples favor. I find it funny when the guys against the second amendment make fun of it they use the 3rd amendment as an example of how dumb rights are. Its just retarded that it has waited this long. I hope the SC doesn't get intimidated into the the states right to ban guns. It will only get worse.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.