2A Victory in IL!

[bigmyk2k]

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]

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.

[Ronin13]

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.

[TFOGGER]

I've never considered putting anyone on ignore on this site before, but saying 'Chi-Town' got you close, man.

the "CH" is pronounced as "SH", thus it becomes Shittown...entirely appropos...

[SA Friday]

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...#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]

[MOD] I merged the "wake up call" thread and the "2A IL" threads together. They are essentially the same topic.

[Sharpienads]

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]

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]

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]

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.