GUN Disctrict Court rules 2nd Amendment does not apply to local gov't

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by konrad109, Dec 15, 2008.

  1. konrad109

    konrad109 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    4,153
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    www.chicagoguncase.com

    The court's opinion:
    http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/dist_ct_nra_opinion.pdf

    They have already appealed this.
     
  2. No big deal. Lower courts make bullshit rulings all the time.
     
  3. Ebtromba

    Ebtromba Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    6,050
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    alexandria, VA
    chicago. a safe place to live.
     
  4. jeepilot

    jeepilot Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KCMO
    I love how they can just pick and choose which amendments to uphold and shit on.
     
  5. bpa00

    bpa00 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,792
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Didn't the supreme court rule just the opposite recently??
     
  6. Jurisbot Esq.

    Jurisbot Esq. Don't blame me I voted for Ron Paul. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    It isn't about upholding or not. The Constitution and subsequently the Bill of Rights were designed to set up and restrict the Federal government and only the Federal government. The states could do what ever they wanted.

    Over the course of history the Supreme Court has "incorporated" certain provisions of the Bill of Rights to apply to state government and their subdivisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) The Second Amendment is one of those provisions that has not been "incorporated."

    IMO, instead of having SCOTUS "incorporate" these provisions the people of each state should have amended their state constitutions or passed laws addressing their grievances.
     
  7. jeepilot

    jeepilot Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KCMO
    :o

    I thought District Court meant U.S. district court.

    Is the second amendement anywhere in IL's bill of rights?
     
  8. Jurisbot Esq.

    Jurisbot Esq. Don't blame me I voted for Ron Paul. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    It was a U.S. District Court.

    From IL's State Constitution:

    "Police power" is a huge wiggle word now days.

    "Police power is the capacity of a state to regulate behaviours and enforce order within its territory, often framed in terms of public welfare, security, morality, and safety. ... The concept of police power is used by federal courts which do not have jurisdiction to interpret state constitutions: from the point of view of federal constitutional law, states have general police powers except where restricted by the federal Constitution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power
     
  9. D-FENS

    D-FENS New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Messages:
    5,197
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd like to propose some laws restricting speech and privacy, and claim that the bill of rights doesn't apply to local governments.
     
  10. jeepilot

    jeepilot Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KCMO
    Ah, that's the part I wasn't understanding. I didn't know that they had a "police power" provision. I was wondering how it could be the case if it were worded like the U.S. Consititution
     
  11. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,389
    Likes Received:
    581
    If the 2nd doesn't apply, then neither do the 1st, 4th, and 5th.
     
  12. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,389
    Likes Received:
    581
    "Selective incorporation" is the biggest load of shit of all time. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment that requires or even suggests that individual rights need to be "incorporated". It says NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW THAT ABRIDGES THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    It doesn't continue with "unless they haven't been incorporated". It's just a bullshit scheme to apply the bill of rights to the states EXCEPT the 2nd.
     

Share This Page