View Full Version : 2A Victory in IL!
Before today, Illinois was the only state in the nation not to have some form of conceal carry after Wisconsin recently approved law.
This week, an appeals court hands the National Rifle Association and gun owners in Illinois a major victory by ruling that the state’s ban on carrying a gun publicly is UNCONSTITUTIONAL !!!
Read more: http://janmorganmedia.com/2012/12/a-gun-rights-victory-in-illinois/#ixzz2ElprY3A8
It's about damn time... [Beer]
Guess I won't be allowed to make fun of my friends from Chi-Town for coming from one of the most retarded states. Word now is that this is going to probably go to the SCOTUS... D.C. is probably next in line to have 2A win as well.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-us-appeals-court-strikes-down-states-concealedcarry-ban-20121211,0,7034171.story
The state of Illinois would have to allow ordinary citizens to carry weapons under a federal appeals court ruling issued today, but the judges also gave lawmakers 180 days to put their own version of the law in place.
In a 2-1 decision that is a major victory for the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said the state's ban on carrying a weapon in public is unconstitutional.
Dammit...ninja'd by Ronin... mods please merge!
There's hope. Well, I wouldn't call it hope, but Abe's trying to roll back over and it's damn cold where the devil lives....
I'm fairly surprised by this. I never would have guessed this would happen in our current political environment. Nonetheless, it's good news.
Dammit...ninja'd by Ronin... mods please merge!
It's okay... I posted the story in the legislation & politics section.. I hesitated to post it here for more readability... http://www.frontrangeairsoft.org/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif
JMBD2112
12-11-2012, 13:28
one of my fellow coworkers just e-mailed me this......awesome!
PugnacAutMortem
12-11-2012, 13:47
Right to work passes in Michigan, CCW ban overturned in Obamaland.
Do you think people needed the eye-opening experience of this past election to get into gear? Hopefully this is a sign of things to come across the country for the next 4 years.
Tell me what you know about the "Right to work" thingamajig. How is it good/bad, and what it changes, etc. I know a ton of states are supposed "Right to work" states, but not CO.
Tinelement
12-11-2012, 14:06
Great news! Just got a text about it!!
Then I used the search function and was bummed I couldn't start the thread!! [ROFL1]
newracer
12-11-2012, 14:08
"Right to work" makes it so a person does not have to join a union. Colorado is kind of a Right to Work state.
BPTactical
12-11-2012, 14:10
You know this just has to stick in BO's craw just a little bit.
You know this just has to stick in BO's craw just a little bit.
So there's an additional upside![ROFL1]
Sharpienads
12-11-2012, 14:13
I'll probably get flamed for this, but I don't care.
I don't see how a state banning guns is unconstitutional. Or a city, as long long as it doesn't violate the state constitution. I think it's stupid, but I don't think it's unconstitutional. The way I understand it, the 2A, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, as originally written applies to the central government.
Well that sounds promising. I saw a map briefly on the TV in our office break room, that showed the "right to work" states, and Colorado wasn't highlighted. I know we in CO have a lot of industry and jobs that aren't forcibly unionized, but I didn't think that many others were so much different than here. I hope this turns out to be a very positive change for Michigan.
SuperiorDG
12-11-2012, 14:20
Holy crap, the courts using logic. This has to be a first.
"Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion that the state "had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden." He continued: "The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/federal-court-strikes-down-illinois-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/#ixzz2EmDABV6o
I'll probably get flamed for this, but I don't care.
I don't see how a state banning guns is unconstitutional. Or a city, as long long as it doesn't violate the state constitution. I think it's stupid, but I don't think it's unconstitutional. The way I understand it, the 2A, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, as originally written applies to the central government.
I thought the Bill of Rights was the almighty trump card... "No state shall" clause and all that.
Sharpienads
12-11-2012, 14:38
I thought the Bill of Rights was the almighty trump card... "No state shall" clause and all that.
The phrase "No state shall" is not in the BoR.
The phrase "No state shall" is not in the BoR.
Oh my bad- It's "Congress shall make no law..."
SuperiorDG
12-11-2012, 14:46
It's called the Supremacy Clause:
"Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power."
Source (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Supremacy+Clause)
Sharpienads
12-11-2012, 14:52
It's called the Supremacy Clause:
"Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power."
Source (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Supremacy+Clause)
The 2A is not an enumerated power of congress. The 2A is supposed to prevent the central government from infringing on the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Are you saying that if the central government can't do it, the states can't either?
Goodburbon
12-11-2012, 14:57
The 2A is not an enumerated power of congress. The 2A is supposed to prevent the central government from infringing on the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Are you saying that if the central government can't do it, the states can't either?
It's in the wording.
amendment 1. "congress shall make no law...." plainly translated, any other lesser body of government may make a law.
amendment 2. " the right ...shall not be infringed" plainly translated, NO body of government at ANY level may make an infringement.
Of course, I'm the odd man out, as this is somehow implemented the opposite of the language.
Sharpienads
12-11-2012, 15:08
It's in the wording.
amendment 1. "congress shall make no law...." plainly translated, any other lesser body of government may make a law.
amendment 2. " the right ...shall not be infringed" plainly translated, NO body of government at ANY level may make an infringement.
Of course, I'm the odd man out, as this is somehow implemented the opposite of the language.
The preamble to the BoR makes it clear that the BoR was directed toward the central government, not the state governments.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Aloha_Shooter
12-11-2012, 15:19
The Supreme Court has ruled on many occasions that states cannot trump Constitutional guarantees like the 2A or 1A. That's the whole reason liberals fight their battles in court rather than trying actually pass laws the normal way. What is so confusing about
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.?
Goodburbon
12-11-2012, 15:19
The preamble to the BoR makes it clear that the BoR was directed toward the central government, not the state governments.
Then why bother with specifying bbodies of government that are limited in the language of the subsequent amendments if it is already implied who is limited?
jhood001
12-11-2012, 15:26
Chi-Town
I've never considered putting anyone on ignore on this site before, but saying 'Chi-Town' got you close, man. [Flower]
I've never considered putting anyone on ignore on this site before, but saying 'Chi-Town' got you close, man. [Flower]
Of all my Chicago friends (and somehow they're all die-hard Cubs fans still to this day) I think I've heard only one of them refer to it as "Chicago," the rest say "Chi-Town." [Dunno]
ronaldrwl
12-11-2012, 16:01
Under BO you have the right to not work and get unemployment for 2 years
Aloha_Shooter
12-11-2012, 16:11
Isolated moment of hope. I thought people just needed a wake-up call four years ago but you have to have been completely asleep, a die-hard Marxist or stupid as all get out to have voted for the clown this year and he still managed to get 51%.
bigmyk2k
12-11-2012, 16:12
To add a little different perspective to this, Judge Napolitano (in his book, "Lies the Government Told You") argues that the right to bear arms was considered a natural law by the framers- like Life, Liberty, and Property. Because they call it THE right to bear arms, they imply that it is a self-existent law, and any infringement by a governing body is a trampling of our natural, God-given rights.
In fact, taxes which are deliberately high enough to deter people from buying certain types of firearm, and the regulation of civilians owning the same types of weapons as the military are unconstitutional, and should have never been passed or upheld. Of course, that never really stops a government from doing something. Just slows them down a bit. (For reference, see the Constitution for it's EXPLICIT wording barring central banks and printed money.)
Sharpienads
12-11-2012, 16:14
The Supreme Court has ruled on many occasions that states cannot trump Constitutional guarantees like the 2A or 1A. That's the whole reason liberals fight their battles in court rather than trying actually pass laws the normal way. What is so confusing about
?[/FONT][/COLOR]
The SC does a lot of things that they shouldn't. Ruling on precedence, IMHO, is a double edged sword and is a big reason why our country is in the mess we're in.
Regardless, as originally written and ratified, the 2A doesn't create anything, it simply restricts the central government from infringing on the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Can we agree on this point? If so, how is a state law in violation of the supremecy clause? The state law doesn't affect the central government's inability to infringe on the individual's right.
Then why bother with specifying bbodies of government that are limited in the language of the subsequent amendments if it is already implied who is limited?
Good question. Why does the 14th amendment specifically say the states can't do things that are outlined in the BoR if the states were already held to the BoR or bound by the supremecy clause?
I don't want you guys to misunderstand me: I firmly believe that every individual has the right to defend themselves and others, and oppose any law at any level to the contrary. But I don't want to let my personal beliefs to skew what is in the constitution. I want to read it for what it says, and not what I want it to say. And I'm not trying to say that's what you guys are doing, either. I'm by no means a constitutional scholar, I just want to take an objective look at it.
To add a little different perspective to this, Judge Napolitano (in his book, "Lies the Government Told You") argues that the right to bear arms was considered a natural law by the framers- like Life, Liberty, and Property. Because they call it THE right to bear arms, they imply that it is a self-existent law, and any infringement by a governing body is a trampling of our natural, God-given rights.
In fact, taxes which are deliberately high enough to deter people from buying certain types of firearm, and the regulation of civilians owning the same types of weapons as the military are unconstitutional, and should have never been passed or upheld. Of course, that never really stops a government from doing something. Just slows them down a bit. (For reference, see the Constitution for it's EXPLICIT wording barring central banks and printed money.)
I've believed this all along... but like you said, that never stops the .gov from doing something... *sigh* if only I was a SCOTUS justice.
I've never considered putting anyone on ignore on this site before, but saying 'Chi-Town' got you close, man. [Flower]
the "CH" is pronounced as "SH", thus it becomes Shittown...entirely appropos...[shithitsfan]
SA Friday
12-11-2012, 16:23
Holy crap, the courts using logic. This has to be a first.
"Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion that the state "had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden." He continued: "The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/federal-court-strikes-down-illinois-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/#ixzz2EmDABV6o
7th Circuit. They are pretty good at rulings not being overturned. Nevertheless, it's Circuit and I guarantee Illinois will appeal this to SCOTUS. We've seen what some of those asshats think. The Liberals will try to stall any ruling on this case. They will probably wait till the last minute to appeal this to SCOTUS and then the liberal judges on SCOTUS will try to put off a decision on taking or not taking the case until they know if Obama is going to get a shot at replacing one of the conservative judges.
The good news on this ruling is it's initial case precedence about individual rights to carry and it happened at a Circuit court level. That carries a butt-load more weight in precedence than if this was a state court of appeals. It also sets a higher court precedence that can be argued if CU does (will) try to change the state law about concealed carry on campuses. Short of a 9th Circuit ruling, the SCOTUS has historically been very cautious of over-ruling a Circuit ruling carrying initial precedence. SCOTUS will typically just not decide to take the appeal if they cannot find error in the Circuit's ruling and logic. It happens once in a while, but this ruling definitely puts a big fricken arrow in the quiver of individual rights of conceal carry.
SA Friday
12-11-2012, 16:29
[MOD] I merged the "wake up call" thread and the "2A IL" threads together. They are essentially the same topic.
Sharpienads
12-11-2012, 16:33
To add a little different perspective to this, Judge Napolitano (in his book, "Lies the Government Told You") argues that the right to bear arms was considered a natural law by the framers- like Life, Liberty, and Property. Because they call it THE right to bear arms, they imply that it is a self-existent law, and any infringement by a governing body is a trampling of our natural, God-given rights.
This I agree with whole-heartedly. My argument in this thread isn't because I don't like the ruling, I'm just not sure if I think the reasoning behind it is sound. The argument that we not only have an inherent right to self defense, but also the ability to secure this right through the most efficient and effective means (currently the firearm), makes much more sense to me.
SA Friday
12-11-2012, 16:41
The SC does a lot of things that they shouldn't. Ruling on precedence, IMHO, is a double edged sword and is a big reason why our country is in the mess we're in.
Regardless, as originally written and ratified, the 2A doesn't create anything, it simply restricts the central government from infringing on the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Can we agree on this point? If so, how is a state law in violation of the supremecy clause? The state law doesn't affect the central government's inability to infringe on the individual's right.
This is part of the never ending debate between state power and federal power. IMO, it needs to be a conflicted system so one can keep the other in check.
Good question. Why does the 14th amendment specifically say the states can't do things that are outlined in the BoR if the states were already held to the BoR or bound by the supremecy clause?
I don't want you guys to misunderstand me: I firmly believe that every individual has the right to defend themselves and others, and oppose any law at any level to the contrary. But I don't want to let my personal beliefs to skew what is in the constitution. I want to read it for what it says, and not what I want it to say. And I'm not trying to say that's what you guys are doing, either. I'm by no means a constitutional scholar, I just want to take an objective look at it.
Because the 14th amendment was written to curtail the south's systemic attempts to force state's abilities to over-ride federal control. The south was financially dependent on agriculture, thus slavery for labor, which drove their entire geo-monetary dependent system. They knew if they lost control federally, they would have to have laws in place already to maintain their cash flow. They did lose control, lost the war, and Lincoln pushed this amendment with this wording to stop any further "rise of the south".
Aloha_Shooter
12-11-2012, 16:48
The SC does a lot of things that they shouldn't. Ruling on precedence, IMHO, is a double edged sword and is a big reason why our country is in the mess we're in.
Mmmm ... stare decisis is fundamental to our system of law. It's not why we're in the mess we're in. IMNSHO, creative writing to make a judge's personal opinion seem like it's based on precedent when it's not is why we have problems today.
Regardless, as originally written and ratified, the 2A doesn't create anything, it simply restricts the central government from infringing on the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Can we agree on this point? If so, how is a state law in violation of the supremecy clause? The state law doesn't affect the central government's inability to infringe on the individual's right.
I quoted the entire article for a reason but obviously, you just don't get it. The plain English of that statement is that the Constitution is the supreme law and neither the federal government nor states can trump its provisions. Those provisions are embedded within the body of the Constitution and all amendments thereof. You therefore cannot make a state law that infringes on rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This is a good segue into your next non-sequitur ...
Good question. Why does the 14th amendment specifically say the states can't do things that are outlined in the BoR if the states were already held to the BoR or bound by the supremecy clause?
The Fourteenth Amendment was passed specifically because slavery -- a condition which not only existed when the Constitution was ratified but was explicitly outlined under the 3/5ths rule for population "accounting" -- had been abolished.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The point of Section 1 was to say slaves born within the US were now considered citizens and states could not pass laws or make their own constitutional amendments to deprive them of those rights.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
This got rid of the 3/5th proportional accounting for slaves.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This provision explicitly gave Congress power to enact legislation designed to enforce equal rights (otherwise someone could argue the 10th Amendment prevented such legislation).
spqrzilla
12-11-2012, 17:03
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. The 14th Amendment was passed to prevent southern states from adopting laws that treated blacks differently from whites - such as forbidding them to testify against whites, or bear arms.
Bailey Guns
12-11-2012, 18:09
This will promptly be overturned by the "new" SCOTUS after Obama gets to appoint a couple more very liberal justices. I wouldn't get too excited about this.
BlasterBob
12-11-2012, 18:51
the "CH" is pronounced as "SH", thus it becomes Shittown...entirely appropos...[shithitsfan]
You beat me to calling it Shittown. I lived and worked there long enought to realize exactly how that shitty city operates. Money will by ANYTHING there.[blaster]
centrarchidae
12-11-2012, 20:09
In this case, it's "..shall not be infringed."
However, none of this applied to state action until the passage of the 14th Amendment. There was actually a SCOTUS case from 1830 or so, over some Baltimore city ordinance or another, which held that the BoR only restrained the Federal government.
Oh my bad- It's "Congress shall make no law..."
Sharpienads
12-11-2012, 21:31
In this case, it's "..shall not be infringed."
However, none of this applied to state action until the passage of the 14th Amendment. There was actually a SCOTUS case from 1830 or so, over some Baltimore city ordinance or another, which held that the BoR only restrained the Federal government.
You would be talking about Barron v City of Baltimore, in which Chief Justice Marshall delivered the majority opinion and stated that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states, but to the central government only.
...the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states. In their several constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested; such as they deemed most proper for themselves.
He goes on to say
In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.