GUN McDonald v. City of Chicago

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Gatsby, Jan 21, 2010.

  1. Gatsby

    Gatsby New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    18,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    nogerO
    Who is ready for this decision? I personally find it absolutely ridiculous that individual cities, counties and states feel they can trump the Supreme Court by interrupting that Keller vs DC only applied to federal land.

    Can't wait for the supreme court to bitch slap them. :wiggle:
     
  2. GlassUser

    GlassUser send an email not a pm OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    265,158
    Likes Received:
    147
    Location:
    Pearland, Texas
    Can't wait.
     
  3. Gatsby

    Gatsby New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    18,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    nogerO
    I've read chicago is already preparing laws that they think will skirt around the ruling, i.e. banning the SALE of weapons in the city. Seriously, must be really scared of guns.
     
  4. 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

    The U.S. Constitution only applied at the federal level when it was first instituted. The states could apply their own bans, regulations, or be even more expansive with their freedoms.

    After the 13, 14, and 15 Amendments, the Supreme Court came up with a way to make them apply to each individual state via "Selective Incorporation". Wherein the Amendment or provision in the Constitution would apply at the state level only if it was "incorporated" upon the states.

    The Second Amendment has not been incorporated at this time by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit of all places ruled that it was incorporated, but was vacated on rehearing. The Second and Seventh Circuit have ruled against incorporation, which is why McDonald v. City of Chicago is headed to the Supreme Court.

    --This is where it gets sticky Constitution Proponents -- Do you want States' Rights and allow the states to be autonomous or do you want the 2A to be ruled upon at a one-size-fits-all level and force the states into compliance?
     
  5. ernest

    ernest OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    I did a paper on this for subject for college last semester. Got an A on it. if anyone's interested here it is. Let me know if the link doesnt work.
     
  6. mvizos

    mvizos New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NoVA
    Info on Keller vs DC? :hsugh:
     
  7. Gatsby

    Gatsby New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    18,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    nogerO
    Not entirely true, Supremacy Clause has a meaning ya know?

    I am for states rights, but I believe that there are various issues that must be federally mandated due to interstate travel and tax purposes (gun laws and gay marriage for example).
     
  8. Gatsby

    Gatsby New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    18,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    nogerO
    :hs: Heller
     
  9. 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

    I thought that was a given. The states would be able to control everything else that wasn't specifically granted to the Federal government to control.

    Of course that has been completed perverted with the "interstate commerce clause".
     
  10. contactone

    contactone OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2002
    Messages:
    30,140
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Cary, Il, formerly of Waukegan
    It's amazing the people of chicago are more interested in bragging that Obama is from their town and not worried that badly needed funds are going towards fighting this lawsuit. School system and public works employees are getting laid off and Chicago is fighting this suit tooth and nail.
     
  11. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,395
    Likes Received:
    581
    The 2nd Amendment IS one-size-fits-all, and DOES require compliance by the states. It does not, like the 1st, say "Congress shall not infringe".

    I have a pen. I hold it up and say "This pen shall not be taken from me". Am I saying that only the federal government can't take it, but it's ok for anybody else to?

    And even if we grant that it only applied at the federal level, that ended with the 14th Amendment, which applied ALL federal rights to the state level.
     
  12. 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

    :rofl:

    Read up on Selective Incorporation.

     
  13. hsmith

    hsmith OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2002
    Messages:
    124,571
    Likes Received:
    660
    Location:
    Your mother.
    lol @ legal experts on OT
     
  14. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,395
    Likes Received:
    581
    I'm very familiar with selective incorporation. Except, that is, for the constitutional basis for it. The 14th Amendment says "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the united states".

    NOT "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the united states which have been incorporated by judicial decree".
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2010

Share This Page