-
Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
The US Supreme Court is rapidly rolling the US back the the old wild west days. Warning to dancers for clubs that have no gun check policy.... Not presented here for political discussion, but instead for consideration for personal safety when in the presence of a wide range of individuals in a confined area.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,7786166.story
By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau June 28, 2010 | 8:13 a.m.
Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court reversed a ruling upholding Chicago's ban on handguns Monday and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe on the "right to keep and bear arms."
The 5-4 decision appears to void the 1982 ordinance, one of the nation's strictest, which barred city residents from having handguns for their own use, even at home.
The ruling has both local and national implications.....
Two years ago, the high court ruled in a case from Washington, D.C., that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals to have a gun for self-defense. Since the District is a federal city and not a state, the court did not decide then whether the 2nd Amendment could be used to challenge other municipal ordinances or state laws.
In Monday's decision, the court said the constitutional protection of the 2nd Amendment extends to city and state laws, not just federal measures.
Gun-rights advocates have been closely following the Chicago case. They said a victory for the 2nd Amendment would clear the way for constitutional challenges to restrictions on firearms to be heard in federal courts nationwide.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the opinion for the Court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined to form he majority.
Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens spoke for the dissenters.
<< This is Justice Stevens' last day.>>
Also...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/...un.ban/?hpt=T1
Washington (CNN) -- In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois', 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.
A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its 2-year-old conclusion that the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.
"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.
The court grounded that right in the due process section of the 14th Amendment. The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun-control measures currently in place nationwide.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer predicated far-reaching implications. "Incorporating the right," he wrote, "may change the law in many of the 50 states. Read in the majority's favor, the historical evidence" for the decision "is at most ambiguous."
He was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
At issue was whether the constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to local gun control ordinances, or only to federal restrictions. The basic question had remained unanswered for decades, and gave the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow Americans expanded weapon ownership rights.
A key question was how far the court would apply competing parts of the 14th Amendment to preserve some "reasonable" gun control measures currently in place nationwide.
The appeal was filed by a community activist in Chicago who sought a handgun for protection from gangs. Otis McDonald told CNN outside his South Side home that he wants a handgun to protect himself and his family from the violence in his neighborhood. "That's all I want, is just a fighting chance," he said. "Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me."
His application for a handgun permit was denied in a city with perhaps the toughest private weapons restrictions in the nation.
The justices two years ago affirmed an individual's right to possess such weapons, tossing out restrictive laws in the federal enclave of the District of Columbia.
The larger issue is one that has polarized judges, politicians and the public for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right or as a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias and therefore subject, perhaps, to strict government regulation? And is that regulation limited to federal laws, or can it be applied to local communities?
The amendment states: "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."
Gun rights groups applauded the decision.
"Today marks a great moment in American history," said Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association. "It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending."
Some gun control advocates tried to put a positive spin on the opinion.
"There is nothing in today's decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending, maintaining, or passing, sensible, strong gun laws," said Paul Helmke, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
The court majority refused to limit its 2008 District of Columbia ruling. That decision offered at least partial constitutional validation to citizens seeking the right to possess one of the most common types of firearms in their homes. The Chicago ruling now extends that right significantly.
The Justice Department estimates that as many as 275 million guns are in the United States. In 2005, three-quarters of the 10,100 homicides by firearms nationwide were committed with handguns.
Underpinning the legal basis for the court's jurisdiction in this appeal is a complex reading of the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War to ensure that all citizens -- including newly freed slaves -- were protected from state laws that might restrict their fundamental rights.
One part ensures that states cannot deprive people of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That has been commonly applied by federal courts when it comes to disputes over basic rights, so-called "ordered liberty" cases. Such cases include affirming the right to abortion, and to homosexual sex.
But another rarely used provision also prevents states from depriving the "privileges or immunities" of all citizens. The specific question for the high court in the Chicago case was whether the "immunities and privileges" clause should be used to overturn the handgun ban. An 1873 ruling limited use of that provision when considering a variety of state laws.
McDonald's lawyer, Alan Gura, promoted a new reading of the clause, in his lead role representing gun owners.
The constitutional theories are dense, but some legal scholars had said that if the high court embraced this "privileges and immunities" clause, it could open up to fresh review a huge range of issues, like property rights and gay marriage.
Courts have generally upheld other cities' restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. The conservative high court majority has in recent years upheld a California ban on assault rifles, similar to a federal ban that expired in 2004.
Forty-four state constitutions protect their residents' right to keep weapons, according to a brief filed by 32 state attorneys general in support of the individual weapons owners in the current appeals.
Some constitutional experts have noted the Bill of Rights had traditionally been applied by courts only to the federal government, not to local entities. It was not until the past half-century that the justices have viewed free speech, assembly, and the press -- among other rights -- as individual in nature, and fundamental to liberty, superseding in many cases the power of states.
There have been limits. The high court has repeatedly refused to extend to states the 5th Amendment requirement that persons can be charged with serious crimes only by "indictment of a grand jury."
The current case was McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521).
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
from the personal safety aspect, are you referring to the 'new' right of Chicago dancers ( and NYC and other cities with handgun ban laws ) to carry a pistol in their purse while exiting the club at closing time ? My point of course is that there are two sides to this issue ... with some statistics showing that areas having 'weak' gun control laws ( thus a higher percentage of the general population likely to be 'packing' ) also have lower crime rates for certain types of crimes ( i.e. those where the purp runs the risk of being shot by the intended victim ! ).
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
this is a good thing. The 2nd amendment is very clear and that was a clear infringement.
Have you looked at it from the OTHER point of view...? Now dancers can pack heat to protect themselves.
I'm far from a gun nut...in fact, I kind of dislike guns, to be honest...but I like freedom.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
with some statistics showing that areas having 'weak' gun control laws ( thus a higher percentage of the general population likely to be 'packing' ) also have lower crime rates for certain types of crimes ( i.e. those where the purp runs the risk of being shot by the intended victim ! ).
I am a firm believer in this train of thought.
Neighborhood A: Not known for citizens carrying guns.
Neighborhood B: LOVES GUNS. Friggen gun range right in the middle of it.
Which Neighborhood does the criminal mind hit for home invasions?
Only logical.
To further this, how exactly did the guns laws work out for Chicago? Not so well. Did a great job of keeping guns from law abiding citizens. Check this story out from 2008:
As the Chicago Tribune reports, Chicago’s murder rate is up 18% over the same time frame last year. 62 people were killed in the month of July alone, and there were several high profile shootings, such as the Taste of Chicago shootings or the murder of a cop with his own gun. In the overwhelming majority of these murders, criminals used handguns, despite 20+ year long ban on handgun ownership in Chicago. Clearly, the criminals are ignoring the handgun ban.
Now take a look at country like Switzerland which is even more gun happy then the U.S. Take a look at its gun crime rate.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr Hyde
this is a good thing. The 2nd amendment is very clear and that was a clear infringement.
Have you looked at it from the OTHER point of view...? Now dancers can pack heat to protect themselves.
I'm far from a gun nut...in fact, I kind of dislike guns, to be honest...but I like freedom.
I agree. I hate guns, and doubt I'd ever own one, but support anyone who wants to own a gun (and is a law abiding citizen). Also, it's so easy for gangbangers to get guns in Chicago, yet law abiding citizens can't own them? That's wrong. I've known many gangbangers who owned guns, and by the gun ban, the city is saying gangbangers have more rights than law abiding citizens.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
If only the court had used the same reasoning they invoked less than a week ago while dealing with a First Amendment issue.
"...The court's majority said it was not abdicating its role in protecting constitutional freedoms but acknowledging that Congress and the executive branch are better situated than the judiciary to decide what kind of restrictions are needed to keep Americans safe in a post-Sept. 11 world of terrorist threats..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062101811.html
But, of course, that was the mighty Patriot Act vs The pesky U.S. Constitution.
And the Right is so concerned about Kagan being an activist.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
You will never convince me that someone who has decided to shoot somebody will change his/her mind because of a sign that says "no guns allowed".
-E
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
Illinois doesn't allow concealed carry, and I doubt that they will in the foreseeable future, so any dancer with a gun in her purse in Illinois will be taking a risk.
As for Chicago, Mayor Daley will put up every roadblock he can to allow citizens to own handguns legally, the arguments he presents in favor of the handgun ban are quite insane.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
TL : Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens interested in protecting themselves be allowed to do so? The criminals are going to get guns one way or another, legal or illegal. Chicago has had a soaring murder rate while guns were illegal.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
I might get a gun permit , buy a double belt level holster, two 45's and a double ammo belt over each shoulder . and wear a 20 gallon black hat. What good is a gun if no one sees you wearing it?
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
from the personal safety aspect, are you referring to the 'new' right of Chicago dancers ( and NYC and other cities with handgun ban laws ) to carry a pistol in their purse while exiting the club at closing time ?
I've referred to gangsters carrying guns into clubs if bans on gun checks become law. not that many clubs screen for that anyway. Just how far does the USSC think we will go to enable this so-called "right?"
You know a lot of pretty seedy characters populate strip clubs. Last thing I want for anyone is to be caught between a couple of gangsters fighting it out in a club over which extras dancer they will be taking home. Or some such insanity.
To me this gun things seems like such a RADICAL policy, not conservative at all!
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
Quote:
Originally Posted by
threlayer
I might get a gun permit , buy a double belt level holster, two 45's and a double ammo belt over each shoulder . and wear a 20 gallon black hat. What good is a gun if no one sees you wearing it?
Actually, it protects you in your house or business from someone with an illegal gun looking to prey on you. No one is espousing being "strapped" whenever out in public, but hey, knock yourself out.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
I don't care about whether it decreases crime or whatever...almost all arguments in that area are arguable.
What I care about is the government telling me that I can't have a right that the Constitution guarantees me.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr Hyde
I don't care about whether it decreases crime or whatever...almost all arguments in that area are arguable.
What I care about is the government telling me that I can't have a right that the Constitution guarantees me.
My understanding is the highest rates of violent crime occur in area with the strictest gun laws.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
It comes down to do you have a right to protect yourself or not?
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
I can't understand the ridiculous desire to own a gun but the law is very clear on the subject. Trying to pass stupid gun control laws is as pointless as when conservatives try to pass stupid religious laws just to cause trouble, they both know it won't stand up in court but they are just trying to make a point. I gotta say it's kind of funny watching conservatives defend the sanctity of the constitution on issues they agree with while trying to change the parts they don't like.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
^^^ A fellow kicked my door down and started taking shit. My gun and I came out of the bedroom and there was no arguing, no fighting, no wrestling, his friends weren't coming to help him beat my ass - just a whole lot of running on his part. When people stop doing ridiculous things, I might be inclined to give up my ridiculous desire.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deogol
^^^ A fellow kicked my door down and started taking shit. My gun and I came out of the bedroom and there was no arguing, no fighting, no wrestling, his friends weren't coming to help him beat my ass - just a whole lot of running on his part. When people stop doing ridiculous things, I might be inclined to give up my ridiculous desire.
That makes as much sense to me as buying a scalpel in case you get a tumor.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bem401
My understanding is the highest rates of violent crime occur in area with the strictest gun laws.
New York City has among the strictest gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest, or the lowest, violent crime rates of any big city.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
I hope that as part of owning a gun, that people must take some training. I remember awhile back where a cop's kid found a gun in the house and started playing with it. Another kid was killed. People should think this through and make sure people know how to use them for protection as intended.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trem
That makes as much sense to me as buying a scalpel in case you get a tumor.
From your previous posts I can see how it would. ;)
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
Some idiot entered my house without asking for entry. He pointed a huge pistol at my guests who told me that he said stole his toilet plunger. I was just outside my house at the time, but I heard a strange's voice as I entered downstairs, walked up the stairs and saw him and the pistol in profile. I waked back down the stairs trying to cause very little disturbance and called the Cops. Four cars came within 3 minutes, but while I was doing the 911 call, he left. My guests pointed out who this creep was and the cops went after him. (Long story ensues about how he got out of his mess with his VFW buddy, a police Lt. He actually did try to fire the gun but one of my guests foiled the revolver's hammer.)
If I had had a gun (I don't) in the house I would have had no opportunity to get it. But if I did have that opportunity, I would have thought it would cause a gunfight and someone could have gotten really hurt. Even if I had carried a weapon as I came up the stairway, I couldn't have used it because of the angles involved.
Experts say that the average gun-owner would cause way more trouble than he would be able to solve. Maybe some of you hot shots think differently, but guns against guns is not a sport nor a game. You would be taking the biggest chance in your life to get killed or to kill someone else, not necessarily the perpetrator.
And now I'm going to have to buy a couple of 45's and a double holster (see above). Thanks to the wild west idiots in the USSC. My opinion and you won't change it.
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
Quote:
Originally Posted by
threlayer
Some idiot entered my house without asking for entry. He pointed a huge pistol at my guests who told me that he said stole his toilet plunger. I was just outside my house at the time, but I heard a strange's voice as I entered downstairs, walked up the stairs and saw him and the pistol in profile. I waked back down the stairs trying to cause very little disturbance and called the Cops. Four cars came within 3 minutes, but while I was doing the 911 call, he left. My guests pointed out who this creep was and they went after him. (Long story ensues about how he got out of his mess with his VFW buddy, a police Lt. He actually did try to fire the gun but one of my guests foiled the revolver's hammer.)
If I had had a gun (I don't) in the house I would have had no opportunity to get it. But if I did have that opportunity, I would have thought it would cause a gunfight and someone could have gotten really hurt. Even if had carried a concealed weapon as I came up the stairway, I couldn't have used it because of the angles involved.
Experts say that the average gun-owner would cause way more trouble than he would be able to solve. Maybe some of you hot shots think differently, but guns against guns is not a sport nor a game. You would be taking the biggest chance in your life to get killed or to kill someone else, not necessarily the perpetrator.
And now I'm going to have to buy a couple of 45's and a double holster (see above). Thanks to the wild west idiots in the USSC. My opinion and you won't change it.
I only have one thing to say to ANYONE who places faith in "experts"
And that would be read this: http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us-Scien...7946433&sr=1-1
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
which one is the 'expert'?
-
Re: Another "Brilliant" USSC Decision that unstablilizes us
Quote:
Originally Posted by
threlayer
To me this gun things seems like such a RADICAL policy, not conservative at all!
This is a very Conservative attitude and policy.
Conservatives believe in INDIVIDUAL responsibility.