Will the Supreme Court Recognize the Truth About Chicago's Handgun Ban?

[SATCOM]

Washington DC residents, did you know that since the Heller decision, murders in Washington plummeted by 25 percent, dropping from 186 murders in 2008 to 140. That translates to a murder rate that is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washinton’s lowest since 1967?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/01/john-lott-supreme-court-guns-chicago-ban/

By John Lott - FOXNews.com

What the crime data show is that gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, they do not make them safer.

In the 2008 “Heller” decision, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and gunlock requirements. Unsurprisingly, gun control advocates predicted disaster. They were wrong. What actually happened in our nation’s capital after the Heller decision ought to be remembered tomorrow as the Supreme Court hears a similar constitutional challenge to the Chicago handgun ban.

When the Heller case was decided, Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned: "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence." Knowing that Chicago's gun laws would soon face a similar legal challenge, Mayor Richard Daley was particularly vocal. The day that the Heller decision was handed down, Daley said that he and other mayors across the country were "outraged" by the decision and he predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts. Daley warned that people "are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute."

But Armageddon never arrived. Quite the contrary, murders in Washington plummeted by an astounding 25 percent in 2009, dropping from 186 murders in 2008 to 140. That translates to a murder rate that is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washinton’s lowest since 1967. While other cities have also fared well over the last year, D.C.'s drop was several times greater than that for other similar sized cities. According to preliminary estimates by the FBI, nationwide murders fell by a relatively more modest 10 percent last year and by about 8 percent in other similarly sized cities of half a million to one million people (D.C.'s population count is at about 590,000).

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has followed how crime rates change after gun bans have been imposed. Around the world, whenever guns are banned, murder rates rise.

Washington’s murder rate soared after its handgun ban went into effect in early 1977 (there is only one year while the ban was in effect that the murder rate fell below the1976 number and that happened many years later -- in 1985). Its murder rate also rose relative to other cities. Washington’s murder rate rose from 12 percent above the average for the 50 most populous cities in 1976 to 35 percent above the average in 1986.

Chicago fared no better after the 7th Circuit Appeals court upheld its ban on new handguns in late 1982. Over the next 19 years following the ban, there were only three years where the murder rate was as low as in 1982. As shown in the forthcoming third edition of my book "More Guns, Less Crime," before the ban, Chicago's murder rate was falling relative to the 9 other largest cities, the 50 largest cities, the five counties that boarder Cook county, as well as the U.S. as a whole. After the ban Chicago's murder rate rose relative to all these other places. For example, comparing murder rates among the 50 most populous cities, the murder rate went from equaling the average for the other cities in 1982, to exceeding their average murder rate by 32 percent in 1992, to exceeding their average by 68 percent in 2002.

The failures of gun bans in the U.S. are frequently blamed on lax gun restrictions in other states. But the experiences of other countries, even in island nations that have banned handguns and in countries where borders are easy to monitor, do not support this claim. For when handgun bans were enacted in Ireland and Jamaica, in 1972 and 1974, respectively, murder rates doubled over the following decade. And take the more recent example in England and Wales, where handguns were banned in 1997: deaths and injuries from gun crime more than doubled over the next seven years.

The benefits of guns are not lost on Chicago's politicians. Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote in 2008 that there are two types of people who are allowed to have handguns in Chicago: "The criminals. And the politicians." The politicians use their pull to either "become deputized peace officers so they can carry" or "often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll." It is just that the politicians don't want to extend those benefits to the citizens they are supposed to represent. This includes Mr. Otis McDonald, the lead plaintiff in the Chicago case. He is a 76-year-old black man living in a neighborhood infested with drug dealers. McDonald's home has been burglarized three times, and he would like to possess a handgun that he can easily access next to his bed.

Chicago's fate will be decided on constitutional issues. The decision ultimately comes down to whether the Second Amendment applies to the states in the same way that the 14th Amendment has been applied to most of the Bill of Rights. It would seem to be a no-brainer, especially since the 14th Amendment was in large part passed to protect newly freed blacks from Southern states passing laws to disarm them. Nevertheless, how one sees guns affecting crime seems to color interpretation of the Constitution. The brief submitted by the city of Chicago to the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasizes the claim that more guns cause more crime. They argue: "a handgun ban and stringent firearms regulation will best address the very serious problem of handgun crime and violence in their communities."

Despite Chicago's ban, criminals still have managed to get their hands on guns. During the first 10 months of last year Chicago police confiscated or recovered 7,234 guns, which is about one gun for every 14 gang members in Chicago and surrounding suburbs. And police found just a small fraction of the guns. What the crime data show is that gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, they do not make them safer. Even restrictions on guns, such as laws that mandate that citizens store shotguns and rifles locked and unloaded, defeat the very purpose of guns and often make the guns no more useful than sticks.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press). The book's third edition of which will be published in May.

[Longrifle]

Washington DC residents, did you know that since the Heller decision, murders in Washington plummeted by 25 percent, dropping from 186 murders in 2008 to 140. That translates to a murder rate that is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washinton’s lowest since 1967?

When the Heller case was decided, Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned: "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence." Knowing that Chicago's gun laws would soon face a similar legal challenge, Mayor Richard Daley was particularly vocal. The day that the Heller decision was handed down, Daley said that he and other mayors across the country were "outraged" by the decision and he predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts. Daley warned that people "are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute." . . .
Control freaks . . . :mad:

Open carry or concealed, no permit required.

Second Amendment guarantees it.

[NWPTrainer]

Open carry or concealed, no permit required.

Second Amendment guarantees it.



That's how I roll....

[Tracy]

Control freaks . . . :mad:

Open carry or concealed, no permit required.

Second Amendment guarantees it.

Yep.

[random]

Control freaks . . . :mad:

Open carry or concealed, no permit required.

Second Amendment guarantees it.

All guns? Including automatic weapons?

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just new to this belief so I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

[8Ball]

I would agree with you guys but I think I am being watched.:smile:

Hell with it. I agree 100%. I am fortunate to live in the same state as Longrifle. It is very gun friendly. Although, the CC permit is easy to get and issued by the Sheriff. They charge what they want and get to keep it all. It varies by County. That kind of sticks in my craw. But, all in all, not bad.

[8Ball]

All guns? Including automatic weapons?

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just new to this belief so I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Uh, yeah. Not coming down on you but this can be touchy.
Who are they to tell me which rights I am afforded and not afforded. The rights are given to us by our creator. Not .Gov. They are just in the business of infringing on rights.

[6danNick]

I have plenty to say about the Chicago case when it comes to the Court, but I don't want to type it out, so I'm going to try and post a rough draft of a term paper I did last semester.

[QUOTE]On the 3rd of June, 2009, a petition for a writ of Certiorari was filed by the petitioner, National Rifle Association et al. Within the month, the briefs of amicus curiae followed. On behalf of the National Rifle Association, the Illinois State Firearms Association, Arm Keepers, the American Civil Rights Union, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., the Cato Institute and Gun Owners of America, Inc. all filed amicus curiae briefs in chief. With the push for incorporation in Illinois, other civil rights groups representing 31 other states have begun filing briefs as well. A grass roots movement has formed all across the country with local gun smiths, shooting clubs, hunters and local law enforcement agents joining together to push legislation through state assemblies and filing motions for circuit courts to hear arguments challenging local and state ordinances outlawing the ownership and ability to carry firearms for personal protection.
The law in question was the handgun ban of two municipalities, both entities of the State of Illinois. The City of Chicago and the City of Oak Park both have laws that prohibit the ownership and carrying of handguns for personal and home protection. Following the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller et al, there were attempts on multiple fronts across the country to overturn state and local laws that prohibited the use and carrying of handguns. These attempts were unsuccessful in both the 7th Circuit and 2nd Circuit. In both circuits, the judges decided that only the United States Supreme Court could decide if the 2nd Amendment could be incorporated that would force the States to disregard any and all laws that prohibit the right to bear arms. In the 2nd Circuit’s Maloney v. Cuomo (2009), future Justice Sotomayor ruled that the 2nd Amendment wasn’t appropriate for incorporation. When Maloney v Cuomo is heard within the coming months by the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor will not participate due to her contribution while sitting on the 2nd Circuit Court. The addition of Justice Sotomayor to the Supreme Court however, will not change the political climate from the last Court, at least in regards to gun politics. Former Justice Souter was in the dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller.
This case comes at a time when debate over the 2nd Amendment is common and considered a “hot button issue.” With the campaign and subsequent election of President Barack Obama, Americans rushed to purchase firearms, worried that President Obama’s voting record in Illinois and then in the United States Senate would place the right to bear arms in his Justice Department’s crosshairs. Fears over a renewal of former President Clinton’s Assault Weapons Ban and infringement to carry concealed handguns for personal protection ran rampant. Due to these concerns, Congress and the Courts saw a massive increase in case load related directly to gun rights. The National Rifle Association saw a spike in membership and had their lobbyists working overtime within the Congress. The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action not only began drafting anti-gun control bills to be fielded by Congress, but had their attorney’s bring the constitutionality of firearm bans, both Federal and State-based, into question. The 2nd, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts all heard cases, many times having two or three on the docket at the same time. When National Rifle Association et al v. City of Chicago was filed, the subsequent McDonald et al v. Chicago was filed in the 7th Circuit Court as well.
The law surrounding National Rifle Association et al v. City of Chicago and its sister cases Maloney v. Cuomo and McDonald et al v. City of Chicago is the issue of Incorporation. Incorporation is the process of applying the Bill of Rights, rights that are guaranteed by the Federal Government, to the States. Since the Supreme Court began hearing cases related to Incorporation, they were always adamant to make sure that the Federalist approach was taken that they would allow the States to retain autonomy and decide which rights their citizenry were afforded on a local level. Though constitutionally, Federal mandate always trump local mandate, the court was always sure to allow States the right to decide which of the rights the Federal Government are held to be afforded to citizens of said States.
However, starting in the 1920s, the Supreme Court started to utilize a “modern view” to look at the way that rights are granted to not only citizens of the United States, but citizens of the individual States. The Court started to re-examine the way that the Bill of Rights was applied to the States. The first such instance was 1925 in Gitlow v. New York. The court held on the issue of Freedom of Speech, "For present purposes we may and do assume that" the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press were "among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states." The Court started to abide by this new “modern view” in determining which rights were fundamental, pertinent and essential to liberty.
The Federal Question is whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses. Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process is known as selective incorporation.
The Court has been haunted, one could say, due to the precedent set in The Slaughter House Cases (1873) where the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities clause. The Court held that the clause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal, citizenship. Whenever the 2nd Amendment was considered for Incorporation, it fell to the pre-“modern view” in which no right, though granted by the Federal Government, was equally guaranteed by the state. For 50 years, the Court was bound by the precedent no matter what the right. Even rights held to the sacred standards that they are today, such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion, or even a right to a speedy trial, were struck down within the jurisdiction of the States, all in an effort to preserve the Federalist history of the United States.
The Supreme Court has already ruled multiple times in favor of incorporation since the “modern view” was utilized. Rights that were considered to be inseparable to citizens no matter if they fell under State or Federal Jurisdiction were incorporated. In the 1st Amendment, which is considered to be the most important in regards to the rights it grants, all of the elements, from freedom of religion to the freedom of expressive association were incorporated because the Court felt that to not incorporated them would be a serious attack on the liberties granted to citizens of the United States.
Though many rights have been incorporated since the “modern view” was adopted by the Court, the 2nd Amendment hasn’t been brought into question. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court didn’t have to worry about the issue of Incorporation due to the fact that the case dealt with a Federal Jurisdiction. There has been no clear precedent set due to the fact that the “modern view” hasn’t been taken into account for the two cases that predate the Supreme Court's modern incorporation criteria: Presser v. Illinois (1886), and United States v. Cruikshank (1875.) The Court found in the two cases that the 2nd Amendment was not to be incorporated. In this matter, there is no real precedent unless one takes into consideration the multiple cases where the “modern view” of other “fundamental” or “essential” rights were incorporated.
In Presser v. Illinois, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits only the power of Congress and the national government, not that of the state. And in United States v. Cruickshank, the Court found that the 1st Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the 2nd Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government. It is important to note that the current Court will see that this precedent, in regards to the 1st Amendment right to Assembly, was overturned and incorporated in De Jonge v. Oregon where the Court ruled that Dirk De Jonge had the right to organize a Communist Party and to speak at its meetings, even though the party advocated industrial or political change in revolution.
Buried in the opinion for District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court wrote, “With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the 1st Amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.” In addition to the footnote, the Heller court of 2008 condemned Cruikshank when they cited with approval a new book by Charles Lane, "The Day Freedom Died" in which "the day" was the day the Cruikshank decision was handed down, essentially "legalizing" over 4,000 lynchings and innumerable civil rights violations by state and local governments by barring Federal protection of civil rights.
Ever since the “modern view” has become practice in the Courts, textualists, who tend to be more Federalist than their activist colleagues, have made a habit of favoring personal liberties over State sovereignty. When coupled with the fact that this is an issue of gun-control, a right that is considered “fundamental,” the chances of the Supreme Court overruling the 7th Circuit Court are high. In regards to the recent District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled in favor of Heller in a 5 to 4 decision.
When it comes time to decide if the 2nd Amendment is to be incorporated, I believe that the Court will overturn the 7th Circuit Court’s decision. In Heller, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito voted in the majority with Scalia writing the opinion of the Court. All five of these members will hear the National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago case and will continue to uphold the 2nd Amendment as a right that guarantees the protection of liberty that is both “fundamental” and “essential.” As alluded to in the footnote in the opinion, they feel that when viewed through the lens of “modern view” the right to bear arms will be incorporated.
The case will be a test of the “modern view” In a forum that is untested and still very much a mystery to the Courts. Justice Kennedy is a wildcard who is known to vote on the language of the writ. His views cannot easily be defined within a ser philosophy. However, if Heller is any sort of gauge, he will vote to incorporate the 2nd Amendment. The opportunity to incorporate a fundamental right will be a new era of civil liberties afforded to citizens. The Supreme Court will be able to overrule the mistakes made in The Slaughter House Cases and will serve as precedent for years to come within the Federal and State realms. Though the 2nd Amendment was briefly incorporated from March to September 2009 by a ruling of the 9th Circuit, but due to political pressure from Washington, the Courts have decided to rehear the case en banc. But ultimately, due to the mention in the Heller opinion, this will most likely be a moot issue by the end of the Court’s spring session.[QUOTE]

[Billy L-bach]

guns are bad...
get over it

The police will protect us.

[8Ball]

guns are bad...
get over it

The police will protect us.

You said it Brother!
When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away!

Oh, shit. never mind...

[6danNick]

This doesn't incorporate citations, so I'm sorry for any apparent plagerism. The Works cited and footnotes were part of a later draft that was on a flash drive that was erased.

[KidA]

This doesn't incorporate citations, so I'm sorry for any apparent plagerism. The Works cited and footnotes were part of a later draft that was on a flash drive that was erased.

That's cool and all, but can you go back and close your quote tag so it shows as a quote and also add some space between paragraphs so it's readable?
I don't think anyone's going to read it the way it looks now.

[8Ball]

That's cool and all, but can you go back and close your quote tag so it shows as a quote and also add some space between paragraphs so it's readable?
I don't think anyone's going to read it the way it looks now.

+1
It makes my head hurt. All those fancy words and book lernin'.

Indention's are your friend Brother!

[GackMan]

All guns? Including automatic weapons?

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just new to this belief so I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.


Does the 1st amd only extend to standing on an apple box in the town square or to quill pens and guttenberg printing presses?

Why would a right be static and tied only to the technology available at the time of the constitution?

[6danNick]

OK. Since I can never format inside forum replies, let's see if this link works. I uploaded on Google Docs.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeN-6imIHgeeZGZ2cmpxajRfMWM2ZjJmN2d0&hl=en

[Greenhat]

All guns? Including automatic weapons?

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just new to this belief so I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

"not be infringed" means what it says. Yes, including automatic weapons. I don't actually understand the fear/concern about automatic weapons anyway. I'd much rather face someone with an Uzi who "sprays and prays" than someone with an 1860 Army that aims and squeezes.

[Doink]

All guns? Including automatic weapons?

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just new to this belief so I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Yes, if not the "not to be infringed" stuff above, then because you armed with a full auto gun (and trained in it!) is at least as equal to a criminal trying to mug you with the same (and he probably doesn't have the training you do)

[SOTB]

I don't actually understand the fear/concern about automatic weapons anyway. I'd much rather face someone with an Uzi who "sprays and prays" than someone with an 1860 Army that aims and squeezes.Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-reload-ooooooooooooooooooooooooord....:biggrin:

[NWPTrainer]

All guns? Including automatic weapons?

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just new to this belief so I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Yes, including automatic weapons.

If you consider the fact that the Founding Fathers (heretofor abbreviated as FF for the sake of brevity and cause I'm a lazy fucker) had just fought and, somewhat miraculously, won a war started, in small part, because the government in power had tried to confiscate the local militia weapons, it makes complete and total sense that the right to own and carry automatic weapons should not be infringed upon either.

Consider this.....the standard issue weapon of the British infantryman at the time of the AmRev was the "Brown Bess." A smoothbore, muzzleloading weapon (Can't call it a rifle, since it wasn't rifled) of .75 caliber. The nickname came, at least in part, because the finish of the metal parts of the weapons was brownish in color.

While these were common in civilian hands as well, a large number of of the rebels during the war also carried actual rifles. While somewhat slower to reload, the Kentucky pattern rifle was far more accurate and had a somewhat longer range. The British Army in fact (and the U.S. if my memory serves me correctly), didn't begin to issue rifles as common weapons until the mid-nineteenth century. So, at the time of the AmRev, many citizens had weapons SUPERIOR to the federal army......This makes sense when you consider numerous comments made by the likes of President Jefferson along the lines of the people needing to rebel against the government on a regular basis....The citizenry should have weapons at least equal to the regular military, if not superior.

You may not know it, but until the Gun Control Act of 1968, large-calbier weapons (20MM and up), including mortars, hand grenades, and field artillery, could actually be bought, mail-order or through your local hardware store, if you could afford it (and find it).

I would completely support (and I imagine a lot of others would too), the abolition of the GCA of 1968 and 1934. If I want to go buy a fucking M240B, who should be able to say I can't, and why? I've not been convicted of a felony, or domestic violence, or any other restriction....And THAT is a whole other ball of wax.

If I feel like I should be able to own an RPG-7, why the fuck shouldn't I be able to? It's not like I'm gonna go around blowing up armored cars....unless I need to :biggrin:.

So yeah, when I say "That's how I roll...." I mean, if I could get one, I'd throw an M240B in the backseat of my ranch truck. In the meantime, I'll settle for a sidearm and a magazine-fed semi-auto rifle.




Edited to Add: The above in no way, shape, or form is intended to imply that I support, endorse, or suggest armed insurrection against the legally constituted government of these United States.

[redhawk]

On a related note, Ohio set a record for issuance of CCW permits in 2009. I'm not sure what motivated everyone and their cousin to purchase a weapon this year? :biggrin:

[random]

Wow, I had no idea that many people were in favor of no control. Interesting reads, thanks.

[AustinPT]

whenever some misguided asshat starts extolling the wonders of gun control, I refer them to this article. Usually leaves them with a deer-in-the-headlights look.

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=285&Itemid=37

Kennesaw Revisited



By Jeff Knox



(October 7, 2008) In 1981, Morton Grove, Illinois became the first town in the U.S. to pass a flat out ban on the possession of handguns within the town limits by anyone except police and active duty military during the performance of their official duties. In response, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a gun law of their own in March of 1982. The Kennesaw law was almost the exact opposite to the Morton Grove ordinance. Rather than banning handgun possession, Kennesaw required every head-of-household to keep at least one firearm and appropriate ammunition in their home – with exemptions for those who had religious or philosophical objections to maintaining or using weapons. In other words, gun ownership was mandatory except for people who didn’t want to own a gun.



While Morton Grove became an instant media darling, Kennesaw became a pariah and a punch line. Pundits and “reporters” made jokes and wild predictions about the blood that would soon run in the streets of the small town a few miles North of Atlanta. The derision can still be heard occasionally from a late-night talk show host or a reflective news anchor, but all of the predictions of the “Wild West” and shootouts over fender-benders, simply didn’t pan out. Of course this lack of disaster was simply ignored by most in the media as were the actual results of this little comparative experiment.

Kennesaw and Morton Grove weren’t really a fair comparison when the experiment started. Kennesaw was pretty rural while Morton Grove was solidly suburban. Kennesaw had a population of only about 5500 while Morton Grove was closer to 23,000. And Kennesaw had a per capita crime rate significantly higher than the national average while Morton Grove enjoyed a relatively low crime rate. The fact is, Kennesaw was at a marked disadvantage from the beginning of this comparison. In the nearly three decades since these laws went into effect, Kennesaw’s disadvantage has grown rather than shrunk. While Morton Grove has remained at a fairly steady population, Kennesaw’s population has boomed to take a slight lead. While Morton Grove’s residents are slightly older than the national average, Kennesaw’s are significantly younger. Both towns are predominantly White, but Kennesaw has more Blacks and Hispanics while Morton Grove’s minority population is predominantly Asian. Statistically, Asian populations have the lowest crime rates of any minority while Blacks and Hispanics have the highest crime rates in the nation.

With all of these disadvantages working against Kennesaw, how did the two communities actually fare?

Morton Grove’s relatively low crime rate went up by over 15% immediately after enactment of the ban (12% more than surrounding areas) and has held pretty steady at just a tad below the national average ever since. There has been no statistical indication of the handgun ban having any positive effect.

Kennesaw is a different story though. In 1982, the year the firearms requirement was enacted, Kennesaw realized a 74% reduction in crime against persons over the previous year. That rate then dropped 45% between 1982 and 1983. In fairness, statistics showing percentage increases or decreases in crime can be very misleading especially when crime numbers and the population are both low to begin with.

The statistics that are really telling are per capita comparisons between municipal, county, regional, and national averages. When a city’s crime rate is trending parallel to the national and/or regional crime rates (whether higher or lower) and then deviates dramatically from those averages after a new law is passed, that is a strong indication that the new law is having an impact.

While Morton Grove’s per capita crime rate took a dramatic jump, deviating substantially from regional and national averages, right after passage of their gun ban, Kennesaw’s crime rate did the opposite in an even more dramatic way. After Kennesaw’s gun law was enacted crime dropped dramatically – much faster than federal, state, or local trends – and leveled out well below national averages. In spite of a population increase from 5000 to almost 30,000 during the same period, Kennesaw’s crime rates remain significantly lower than national or area averages. And the people of Kennesaw didn’t have to use their mandated firearms to affect this dramatic change. The simple knowledge on the part of criminals that if they worked in Kennesaw they were choosing to work with an armed prospective victim pool was enough to convince them not to pursue their chosen professions there.

After the enactment of the firearms mandate in 1982, it took 15 years before there was a murder committed with a firearm in the town. As I recall, it was the result of two visitors who got into an argument in their motel room. One was insisting that a .25 automatic could not penetrate thick chest muscles like his and the other fellow decided to settle the argument and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were both idiots.

After 25 years, Kennesaw and Morton Grove stand out as proof positive that the only gun control laws with any hope of reducing crime are laws which empower the law-abiding people rather than disarming them. But remember how much news coverage was given to this story last March? Expect more of that deafening silence for the 26th anniversary next March.

[Vincent]

Interestingly enough, this case is not being argued on 2nd Amendment grounds. It is being argued on the clauses in the 14th Amendment dealing with due process and incorporation.

While the facts of this case concern guns, I believe that how it is decided is going to have far ranging consequences on state laws.

This shuold amplify and clarify the court's intent from Heller, which is that the protections in the BIll of Rights are also extended to prohibitions on state law.

[bobofthedesert]

All guns? Including automatic weapons?

Yes.

People whose sole experience with such is seeing the unerring effect and massive damage that "movie machine guns" are "capable" of see automatic weapons as a threat of a higher order. The reality is that full auto from the shoulder will not generate the number of hits that aimed semi auto fire will except at very close to contact range. You will often hit everything but what you are shooting at. By way of example, IMO the range that a MAC 10 is effective at, a handgun is just as effective. Past 15 meters, you are better off with a handgun.

In my CONUS capacity, I see people with everything from no previous experience at all to people who own guns and shoot, all using full auto for the first time. Big waste of ammo, 7 meters and under for any degree of hits, and even then.....

So, the "automatic weapons" thing, as far them being more dangerous, is very much a perception vs. reality thing.

[SOTB]

Wow, I had no idea that many people were in favor of no control....You have it wrong. People who are posting are not in favor of "no control." They are in favor of the Constitution being followed. The "controls" are in that document.

When people say and write things like we are in favor of "no control", it really shows either that person's ignorance of what we are stating, or a not-very-well-hidden dig on our views.

Furthermore, and just to go back to your earlier question about full-auto weapons, that you believe a full-auto weapon to be more dangerous than a semi-auto, revolver-action, pump-action, lever-action, bolt-action, or even a single-shot weapon, demonstrates how little you know about firearms.

Mis dos centavos....

[Mraughh]

You have it wrong. People who are posting are not in favor of "no control." They are in favor of the Constitution being followed. The "controls" are in that document.

When people say and write things like we are in favor of "no control", it really shows either that person's ignorance of what we are stating, or a not-very-well-hidden dig on our views.

Furthermore, and just to go back to your earlier question about full-auto weapons, that you believe a full-auto weapon to be more dangerous than a semi-auto, revolver-action, pump-action, lever-action, bolt-action, or even a single-shot weapon, demonstrates how little you know about firearms.

Mis dos centavos....

spot on!

[6danNick]

Interestingly enough, this case is not being argued on 2nd Amendment grounds. It is being argued on the clauses in the 14th Amendment dealing with due process and incorporation.

While the facts of this case concern guns, I believe that how it is decided is going to have far ranging consequences on state laws.

This shuold amplify and clarify the court's intent from Heller, which is that the protections in the BIll of Rights are also extended to prohibitions on state law.

The problem is the Incorporation of the 2nd Ammendment hasn't been viewed through the modern lens. Slaughter made sure of that.

Though the foot-noot in Heller is hopefully going to be a good indication that SCOTUS is anxious to incorporate. Though Incorporation is an activist principle, it should still be pushed through in my opinion.

[J2S]

"not be infringed" means what it says. Yes, including automatic weapons.

Absolutely. I do love when you speak Constitution.


People who are posting are not in favor of "no control." They are in favor of the Constitution being followed. The "controls" are in that document.

Well said. Go to the source.

[kosty]

guns are bad...
get over it

The police will protect us.
But how can they be trusted if they carry those "bad" guns?

[kosty]

Yes, if not the "not to be infringed" stuff above, then because you armed with a full auto gun (and trained in it!) is at least as equal to a criminal trying to mug you with the same (and he probably doesn't have the training you do)
I wouldn't argue that civilians should have anything used by the military, but I think a good argument could be made for allowing citizens to own anything used by law enforcement (including Federal agencies).

[t10Guy]

The problem is the Incorporation of the 2nd Ammendment hasn't been viewed through the modern lens. Slaughter made sure of that.

Though the foot-noot in Heller is hopefully going to be a good indication that SCOTUS is anxious to incorporate. Though Incorporation is an activist principle, it should still be pushed through in my opinion.

Yeah, but reading the SCOTUS blog today it looks like they may not overturn Slaughter. Instead they will incorporate via the Due Process clause which is more narrow than the priv and immunities clause.

It seems that a number of the justices are worried about other "rights" that may creep out should they take a non-Due Process track.

This bothers me. It bothers me because the legal minds state that this can "narrow" the right. And any time a right is "narrowed" that means something is lost. And in Chicago... lost means you aint gettin' back for a long time, if ever.

T10

[t10Guy]

I wouldn't argue that civilians should have anything used by the military, but I think a good argument could be made for allowing citizens to own anything used by law enforcement (including Federal agencies).

I would argue that civilians should be able to have ANTYHING the military can have. LEOs (specifically states and other gov entities) can have anything the military has short of nukes pretty much. You want explosives... agencies can get them. Helo's, APCs... maybe even tanks if they wanted to spend the money (though most dont).

So lets not put out broad statements. WHAT type of weapon do you think someone SHOULDN'T have?

[SOTB]

WHAT type of weapon do you think someone SHOULDN'T have?WMDs -- no murky-water stuff. Those weapons which fit into the NBC category of killing buttloads of people.

I can safely state those don't need to be in any hands BUT the military....

[t10Guy]

WMDs -- no murky-water stuff. Those weapons which fit into the NBC category of killing buttloads of people.

I can safely state those don't need to be in any hands BUT the military....

I can get with that for the anything NBC being restricted.
But "conventional" weapons. Anything man portable even if it can defeat armor I would say is ok for the "militia" and hard to say it wasnt what the founders intended.

t10

[labman2]

So lets not put out broad statements. WHAT type of weapon do you think someone SHOULDN'T have?

NBC covers it, I'm all for everyone having the opportunity to buy whatever they want.

I'm tired of filling out reams of paperwork for "suppressors", 6 month delays and paying astronomical prices for what is really no more than quality machine shop work. It's not metal surgery, supply and demand would drive down prices and increase supply.

[EchoFiveMike]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/03/3-slain-in-darien-home-invasion.html

Guess all that gun control we have now isn't working so well. RIP. S/F.....Ken M

PS: I work in Chicago, live in the burbs and home invasions are up, just not getting much press.

[btq96r]

Let me preface this post by saying that I support gun rights, own firearms and want to keep them.
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.
I know that I will probably catch a lot of flak for this...but I think this isn't clearly written enough for the current times. As awesome a document as I view the entirety of the Constitution to be, I think we limit ourselves by not thinking it could be updated. IMO it should be amended to make it clear what the individual's rights are. It's current wording is to vague in any legal context today when you consider what the Militia was meant be in 1787, when this was written.

The Tennessee state constitution has a much better wording as an example for what I think it could say without the ambiguous Militia wording; Tennessee State Constitution, Article I, Section 26, reads:

That the people have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have the power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

I think the issue of rights beyond the right to keep and bear should be left to the states. If the Federal courts have a more clearly defined 2nd amendment, they wont have to take such a hands on approach to hearing cases on gun laws. A lot of the cases can be brought before the state courts to decide. Make the right to keep and bear arms as a protection of the Constitution unmistakable and give the States the latitude to legislate more onto that as they and their people see fit.

For some states this will lead to restrictive carry laws, bans on certain types of weapons and more restrictive laws. If someone doesn't like it, they can weigh that into a decision as to reside in that state or not, like with income, property and sales taxes.

[random]

You have it wrong. People who are posting are not in favor of "no control." They are in favor of the Constitution being followed. The "controls" are in that document.

When people say and write things like we are in favor of "no control", it really shows either that person's ignorance of what we are stating, or a not-very-well-hidden dig on our views.

Furthermore, and just to go back to your earlier question about full-auto weapons, that you believe a full-auto weapon to be more dangerous than a semi-auto, revolver-action, pump-action, lever-action, bolt-action, or even a single-shot weapon, demonstrates how little you know about firearms.

Mis dos centavos....

It wasn't a dig, I don't generally have an opinion one way or the other provided whatever you own is not pointed and firing at me. I generally understood "shall not infringe" to mean no control; I didn't know that was an offensive term so I apologize for using it. It wasn't intentional.

And I've been pretty clear that I know absolutely nothing about firearms aside from the 4 basic safety rules. Like I stated earlier, I'm not debating a full-auto ban/control/restriction/whatever, I wanted to hear people's opinions to the common argument I hear in favor of gun control. That's it. Like I said, I'm very much a "harm none do what ye will" so I don't care what you own, so long as you don't use it against me.

[Forestboy]

I don't want much:

National CCW permit, good everywhere. Or make a CCW from any state legal everywhere, like my drivers license is.

Let me buy my suppressed, full auto, short barreled rifle at walmart (with or without the stupid tax stamps) and make it legal for me to take to every state.

[8Ball]

I don't want much:

National CCW permit, good everywhere. Or make a CCW from any state legal everywhere, like my drivers license is.

Let me buy my suppressed, full auto, short barreled rifle at walmart (with or without the stupid tax stamps) and make it legal for me to take to every state.

At the very MINIMUM...

I could live with those.

[grog18b]

In 1920, any American could pick up a SEARS catalog, and order by mail a fully automatic Thompson sub-machine gun. No criminal history check, no hoops to jump through, and no questions asked.

...and it cost $210 bucks.

Now, any American can buy the exact same Thompson sub-machine gun IF he passes a criminal history check, pays the transfer tax, and jumps through the BATFE hoops.

...and now it costs $25,000.00

Funny huh? Who exactly HAD freedom?

The guy who paid $210 bucks for it.

Back in 1920, what was the difference in our society that made the common American so trustworthy? That same American could also buy a CASE of dynamite at the local feed store, and spend a whole weekend blowing shit up, and laughing his ass off if he wanted to. No special licenses. No criminal history check. No special storage requirements.

Now, that same American would need to have an approved storage magazine, go through the criminal history check, fill out BATFE forms explaining why he needs such explosives, pay out the ass for the actual dynamite, plus the haz mat fees, taxes, and jump through even more hoops.

Once again... Who HAD the freedom? Yup. Guy blowing up shit and laughing his ass off.

Any idea how many legally owned machine guns have been used in a crime since 1968?

None.

Know how many legally owned destructive devices have been used in a crime since 1968?

One. An M203 owned by a law enforcement officer.

There are literally thousands of machine guns legally owned out there in American hands. Anyone with a clean criminal history can buy and own one IF their State law allows it, and if they can afford to buy one made before 1986. Why 1986? Because the Government made it illegal to make new machine guns except for Government sales after 1986.

How many crimes has that prevented?

Well... going by the numbers of legally owned machine guns used in crimes, I'd venture a guess of... None.

My .02c

[grog18b]

[I] IMO it should be amended to make it clear what the individual's rights are.

Bro... There is a reason why rights are not written down, and the Constitution limits Government intrusion into SOME of our rights.

Because once they are written down, someone can and will take them away.

Meaning... Once your "right" is written, there is NO wiggle room. If it's not on the paper, then you don't have a right to it. You see how lawyers today try to twist meanings out of a simple phrase. "...shall not be infringed"... How many different meanings can people come up with for those four simple words? How about one simple word, "Militia"? Apparently quite a LOT. Some people think it means the Army, some the National Guard, some the Reserves, some think it's every able bodies male between the ages of 17 and 70.

There is a book called the "Bible". How many different meanings have people come up with for verses, commandments, and such from that ancient book?

Not a good idea to write out rights. Once they are written someone can deny anything that isn't in writing or better yet, provide their own "interpretation" of what simple phrases mean.

[8Ball]

Great Post!

Bro... There is a reason why rights are not written down, and the Constitution limits Government intrusion into SOME of our rights.

Because once they are written down, someone can and will take them away.

Meaning... Once your "right" is written, there is NO wiggle room. If it's not on the paper, then you don't have a right to it. You see how lawyers today try to twist meanings out of a simple phrase. "...shall not be infringed"... How many different meanings can people come up with for those four simple words? How about one simple word, "Militia"? Apparently quite a LOT. Some people think it means the Army, some the National Guard, some the Reserves, some think it's every able bodies male between the ages of 17 and 70.

There is a book called the "Bible". How many different meanings have people come up with for verses, commandments, and such from that ancient book?

Not a good idea to write out rights. Once they are written someone can deny anything that isn't in writing or better yet, provide their own "interpretation" of what simple phrases mean.

[vivamyrifle]

Absolutey, yes, I believe we have the right to own automatic weapons...

[Titleist]

Let me preface this post by saying that I support gun rights, own firearms and want to keep them.

I know that I will probably catch a lot of flak for this...but I think this isn't clearly written enough for the current times. As awesome a document as I view the entirety of the Constitution to be, I think we limit ourselves by not thinking it could be updated. IMO it should be amended to make it clear what the individual's rights are. It's current wording is to vague in any legal context today when you consider what the Militia was meant be in 1787, when this was written.

The Tennessee state constitution has a much better wording as an example for what I think it could say without the ambiguous Militia wording;

I think the issue of rights beyond the right to keep and bear should be left to the states. If the Federal courts have a more clearly defined 2nd amendment, they wont have to take such a hands on approach to hearing cases on gun laws. A lot of the cases can be brought before the state courts to decide. Make the right to keep and bear arms as a protection of the Constitution unmistakable and give the States the latitude to legislate more onto that as they and their people see fit.

For some states this will lead to restrictive carry laws, bans on certain types of weapons and more restrictive laws. If someone doesn't like it, they can weigh that into a decision as to reside in that state or not, like with income, property and sales taxes.

I believe that the Bill of Rights are afforded to you because you are an American Citizen. Not because you live, or if you live, In Iowa. :rolleyes:

[Cold1]

Now, that same American would need to have an approved storage magazine, go through the criminal history check, fill out BATFE forms explaining why he needs such explosives, pay out the ass for the actual dynamite, plus the haz mat fees, taxes, and jump through even more hoops.

Once again... Who HAD the freedom? Yup. Guy blowing up shit and laughing his ass off.



The last Dynamite i bought was back in the mid to late 90s. Went to a hardware store, filled out the same fed form as for a gun, payed $2 a stick and $4 for each blasting cap. I put the Dynamite in a cooler in the back of the truck and the blasting caps in a seperate coller on the other side of the bed, drove to my folks place and proceded to blow up stumps.
Fun day for all :biggrin:

Has it changed that much since then?

As for the second amendment and gun control "shall not be infringed" is all that needs to be said. I have no criminal history, no domestic violence history, I have been honorably discharged from the military, gainfully employed, and a member of the local VFD. So why cant I buy any gun that i want to whether I need it or not, its my money and my right.

I dont even mind the criminal history check, after all we all know that 99% of the criminals buy thier guns at the local gun stores. :rolleyes:

[kosty]

Because once they are written down, someone can and will take them away.

Meaning... Once your "right" is written, there is NO wiggle room. If it's not on the paper, then you don't have a right to it. You see how lawyers today try to twist meanings out of a simple phrase. "...shall not be infringed"... How many different meanings can people come up with for those four simple words? How about one simple word, "Militia"? Apparently quite a LOT. Some people think it means the Army, some the National Guard, some the Reserves, some think it's every able bodies male between the ages of 17 and 70.

I don't buy this. You seem to be implying that if there were no second amendment then the government couldn't take away the right to keep and bear arms?

If nothing is written, there is nothing to keep anything (to the contrary) from being written.

[Snake]

Amendment—The Second Amendment is hereby repealed. The federal government shall insure that no private individuals keep or possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. All other forms of weapons may be owned, borne and possessed by the citizens of the United States without restriction or registration. Such weapons may not be taxed.


This would seem to cover all bases....

I would like an Ebola-sprayer, though.

[6danNick]

I would like an Ebola-sprayer, though.

Let's see those home invaders try and take your big screen TV while their flesh is eaten away.

[ET1/ss nuke]

I don't buy this. You seem to be implying that if there were no second amendment then the government couldn't take away the right to keep and bear arms?

If nothing is written, there is nothing to keep anything (to the contrary) from being written.

That's why there is a 9th Amendment. It's the catch-all for all those rights that aren't written down. The 9th Amendment was the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1968) that individuals have a right to privacy, and was also the basis for their decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) that women have a right to an abortion. The whole basis of the 9th Amendment is the statement in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, God gave us the right to do pretty much what we want, and it's not the government's business to go mucking around with that.

Besides the nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, I think there is one more classification of weapon that would be inappropriate for the militia, regardless of how one defines it. Traditionally, the militia was always for domestic use only, so I don't see how it would be appropriate for them to have weapons designed for use overseas. Even without the NBC warheads, the militia should not have ICBMs, IRBMs, aircraft carriers, submarines, most naval platforms, landing craft, or aerial refueling tankers.

As for the seriously high power weapons, like tanks, M-2, field artillery, automatic grenade launchers, anti-tank mines, and surface-to-air missiles, while I sympathize with the logic of allowing civilian ownership, I also sympathize with the poor law enforcement officers who could wind up facing such things. If we are going to let private citizens have those things on the basis that it is their right, then we should also let law enforcement have access to those things in the interest of their own self-defense in the lawful pursuit of their duties.

[hile]

I'm not holding my breath, but I think it would be VERY interesting if Justice Sotomayor actually came down on the right side with this one. I don't for one moment think it will happen, but hey a guy can dream. Seeing so large a Fuck You to Chicago and those it bred would be quite refreshing. Of course, seeing the same large Fuck You at NY, NJ, and the majority shareholder in my employer would be nice also.

[SATCOM]

I'm not holding my breath, but I think it would be VERY interesting if Justice Sotomayor actually came down on the right side with this one. I don't for one moment think it will happen, but hey a guy can dream. Seeing so large a Fuck You to Chicago and those it bred would be quite refreshing. Of course, seeing the same large Fuck You at NY, NJ, and the majority shareholder in my employer would be nice also.

Do not count on it. A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/sotomayors-gun-control-positions-prompt-conservative-backlash/

[grog18b]

I don't buy this. You seem to be implying that if there were no second amendment then the government couldn't take away the right to keep and bear arms?
If nothing is written, there is nothing to keep anything (to the contrary) from being written.

I never "imply". I say what I mean. My post was about rights, not about the 2nd amendment, although I used some of the wording to prove a point about how people twist things. The 2nd, as all the other words of the Constitution, restrict the Government. They (the Constitution and Bill of Rights) do not give you your rights. They are used by the Courts to determine if the Government abused (trampled, stepped on, trashed, shitcanned, or whatever) your rights, which already, as ESS put it, existed, pre Constitution.

ESS1 finished the reasoning. Thanks Bro.

Also... It is completely legal to own a tank already. Funny how many people think it would be illegal, or that owning a machine gun is illegal... I know a few people that do own a tank, with functioning (registered DD) main guns. They are of the fully restored WW2 variety, garage kept, equipped with functioning 30 and 50cal machine guns (also legally registered). Ever been to Knob Creek? Most, if not all of the weapons fired there are privately owned, including Mk-19s, Mini-guns, Flame Throwers, machine guns, 20mm AT guns, and so on. It is already legal for civilians to own most, if not all, weapons used by our military as long as properly registered, and you have endless pockets. (ever see photos of Charlton Heston's gun room???) :smile: As a LEO, I never feared coming across one of these weapons. The people that legally have them, are responsible people, including several veterans with their war trophies (they USED to be able to bring back as a perk for the price of being in battle... any coming back from wars of late? Why? We know why... There was a memo...)

A van load of ANFO however, can do a lot of damage. That's why all the changes in explosives regulations since Mcviegh. Yes, there was a LOT of changes, right down to the precursors for flash powder, AN, and other chemicals. People that do model rockets had their chemicals restricted and had to file a Supreme Court case against BATFE to get their rights back, so they could continue to launch their rockets... Apparently, there are some people with deep pockets that like their model rockets. Storage requirements for explosives and chemicals were also changed. (Grand dad kept a box in the barn... on his workbench... no lock...) Now you need an "approved" storage magazine. (For the details on that, see the ATF website.)

[kosty]

The whole basis of the 9th Amendment is the statement in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, God gave us the right to do pretty much what we want, and it's not the government's business to go mucking around with that.

Agreed. I should have worded my question: "If there were no second amendment then the government couldn't create legal restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms?"

[kosty]

I never "imply". I say what I mean. My post was about rights, not about the 2nd amendment, although I used some of the wording to prove a point about how people twist things. The 2nd, as all the other words of the Constitution, restrict the Government. They (the Constitution and Bill of Rights) do not give you your rights. They are used by the Courts to determine if the Government abused (trampled, stepped on, trashed, shitcanned, or whatever) your rights, which already, as ESS put it, existed, pre Constitution.

Agreed. I still don't buy into the idea that we would be better off without a written constitution that included some stated restrictions on the Government.

[btq96r]

Bro... There is a reason why rights are not written down, and the Constitution limits Government intrusion into SOME of our rights.

Because once they are written down, someone can and will take them away.

Meaning... Once your "right" is written, there is NO wiggle room. If it's not on the paper, then you don't have a right to it. You see how lawyers today try to twist meanings out of a simple phrase. "...shall not be infringed"... How many different meanings can people come up with for those four simple words? How about one simple word, "Militia"? Apparently quite a LOT. Some people think it means the Army, some the National Guard, some the Reserves, some think it's every able bodies male between the ages of 17 and 70.

There is a book called the "Bible". How many different meanings have people come up with for verses, commandments, and such from that ancient book?

Not a good idea to write out rights. Once they are written someone can deny anything that isn't in writing or better yet, provide their own "interpretation" of what simple phrases mean.

grog...this was a good train of thought and I liked how it made me adapt my own thought process on this issue. I still stick by my belief that the states should have absolute control over the legislation in regards to gun control. In keeping with your beliefs on how the Constitution restricts government power, not guarantees rights, how would you feel if the 2nd amendment looked something like this;

The Congress shall make no law regarding the keeping and bearing of arms.

To me this would keep the intent of what you spoke of, while allowing the states to decide how to tackle the issue at their level. Thoughts?

[EchoFiveMike]

grog...this was a good train of thought and I liked how it made me adapt my own thought process on this issue. I still stick by my belief that the states should have absolute control over the legislation in regards to gun control. In keeping with your beliefs on how the Constitution restricts government power, not guarantees rights, how would you feel if the 2nd amendment looked something like this;

The Congress shall make no law regarding the keeping and bearing of arms.

To me this would keep the intent of what you spoke of, while allowing the states to decide how to tackle the issue at their level. Thoughts?

On this note, here is Article 22 of the Illinois Constitution:
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

Now, it's open to "police power" but you could have the case made that such would be subject to individual basis action on the part of the courts. IE, restricting rights based on felony conviction or legal determination of insanity, etc. S/F.....Ken M

[t10Guy]

On this note, here is Article 22 of the Illinois Constitution:


Now, it's open to "police power" but you could have the case made that such would be subject to individual basis action on the part of the courts. IE, restricting rights based on felony conviction or legal determination of insanity, etc. S/F.....Ken M


E5M...
dont get me started on that Crap. That "police" power stuff wasnt in there originally. I'll give you a guess as to who led the charge to put that in with that wording.

Illinois cracks me up. My wife and her whole family has lived in the Chicago burbs forever. When we were first getting together the sister-n-laws were just plain disgusted that I owned a ton of guns. They thought all I needed was "what the police dept. gave me".

Most people that live in illinois have no clue about gun laws anywhere in the country. They think the FOID, the Gun ban in the City, the waiting periods, no concealed carry etc, are all perfectly normal.

I am lucky that I have a badge and therefore can carry in Illinois. you dont have a badge you are SOL. and its sad. People talk about NYC or Cali. No one hold a candle to gun laws Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois when it comes to trampling on rights.

[random]

Was helping my mom make dinner and the tv was on in the background. Reporter commenting on this story mentioned how "it's a separate case from DC because the Bill of Rights doesn't necessarily apply to those in the state." I looked at her and asked "Did he seriously just say that?" She commented that if we want our rights we have to move to capital, since God-given rights apparently don't extend across the District lines.

[grog18b]

Agreed. I still don't buy into the idea that we would be better off without a written constitution that included some stated restrictions on the Government.

:confused:

Who said that?

[GackMan]

Agreed. I still don't buy into the idea that we would be better off without a written constitution that included some stated restrictions on the Government.

I don't think anyone said that.

The Constitution doesn't GRANT any rights so those which are not enumerated are left to the states so w/ no 2nd amd that is where freedom to keep/bear arms would be... with the states. However, the founding fathers thought it was important enough to include that the goverment should be specifically restricted in that category.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[CAP MARINE]

yes,the SC will get it.

[NWPTrainer]

Look at it this way Kosty....even if Congress passes a law to ban the ownership of arms (firearms, edged weapons, etc), or even tries to repeal the Second Amendment somehow.....I still have a natural, inalienable, right to arm myself for the protection of myself, my family, my home, my state, and my nation.....The same apploes equally to the people of Chicago, NYC, LA, etc.....and it applies to all rights. The people in the former Soviet Union had an inalienable natural right to express their distate with the government. They also had the same right to worship whatever God they chose to worship, regardless of what the CCCP said to the contrary, and regardless of the fact that they were put in the gulag for expressing those rights. That's because the CCCP was EVIL. Pure and simple. Any government that INFRINGES or restricts the natural, inalienable human rights of its people is.....EVIL.

You don't need a written document to have those rights. You have them regardless of what is written. On the same hand, yes, it's convenient when we have those rights protected, in contract form, as we do. If one party to the contract refuses to adhere to it though, (the federal government in this case), then we (the States) aren't obligated to it anymore either.

In the case coming before the USSC, regarding Chicago, the argument will be made that the local government and individual state of Illinois isn't bound by the same restrictions. They ARE allowed to restrict those rights. It's a fucked up argument though, because it doesn't change the fact that they are NATURAL rights, and the residents of Chicago have the same rights as humans anywhere.

[Horned Toad]

It wasn't a dig, I don't generally have an opinion one way or the other provided whatever you own is not pointed and firing at me. I generally understood "shall not infringe" to mean no control; I didn't know that was an offensive term so I apologize for using it. It wasn't intentional.

And I've been pretty clear that I know absolutely nothing about firearms aside from the 4 basic safety rules. Like I stated earlier, I'm not debating a full-auto ban/control/restriction/whatever, I wanted to hear people's opinions to the common argument I hear in favor of gun control. That's it. Like I said, I'm very much a "harm none do what ye will" so I don't care what you own, so long as you don't use it against me.

Already been said but I feel the spirit of the 2nd Amendment is, if the government can have it so can civilians. At the time of the Revolutionary War, I would bet a war ship was the most powerful military weapon. There were more war ships in the hands of civilians than the Continental Navy.

http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

[ET1/ss nuke]

:confused:

Who said that?

Just another mouthpiece for Big Brother. He's your friend, you know. :rolleyes:

[kosty]

Originally Posted by kosty View Post
Agreed. I still don't buy into the idea that we would be better off without a written constitution that included some stated restrictions on the Government.


:confused:

Who said that?
"some stated restrictions on the Government" was a reference to the Bill of Rights.
So it sounded like you were saying this was a bad idea here:
Bro... There is a reason why rights are not written down, and the Constitution limits Government intrusion into SOME of our rights.

Because once they are written down, someone can and will take them away.
...
Not a good idea to write out rights. Once they are written someone can deny anything that isn't in writing or better yet, provide their own "interpretation" of what simple phrases mean.

If I misunderstood, and you think it is a good idea to have the Bill of Rights (i.e. a place where some rights are written out), then my apologies for misunderstanding what you're saying.

[kosty]

Look at it this way Kosty....even if Congress passes a law to ban the ownership of arms (firearms, edged weapons, etc), or even tries to repeal the Second Amendment somehow.....I still have a natural, inalienable, right to arm myself for the protection of myself, my family, my home, my state, and my nation.....The same apploes equally to the people of Chicago, NYC, LA, etc.....and it applies to all rights.
...
You don't need a written document to have those rights. You have them regardless of what is written. On the same hand, yes, it's convenient when we have those rights protected, in contract form, as we do. If one party to the contract refuses to adhere to it though, (the federal government in this case), then we (the States) aren't obligated to it anymore either.

I fully agree. The rights existed, as a fundamental human right, before the Constitution was written. So how can writing it down allow someone to take it away?

[8Ball]

Just another mouthpiece for Big Brother. He's your friend, you know. :rolleyes:

This is one one of those issues some people will never get. Not even with logical arguments. You just have to have pity on the "special" people...;)

[Greenhat]

I think this isn't clearly written enough for the current times.

Actually, it is very clear. The "militia" portion is a non-dependant clause... meaning it gives reason, not requirement. The key part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Pretty damn clear in my opinion.

[Greenhat]

I don't buy this. You seem to be implying that if there were no second amendment then the government couldn't take away the right to keep and bear arms?

If nothing is written, there is nothing to keep anything (to the contrary) from being written.

The Constitution was originally written without a Bill of Rights. It wasn't considered necessary. It only came into existence after a great deal of argument, because its opponents were concerned that it would be seen as a list of all rights that the citizens had. Which is why the Bill of Rights, despite being called that, is NOT a list of rights... it is a series of restrictions on the government.

Our rights, both those mentioned in the Bill of Rights and those not mentioned, are ours... and can only be taken away when we let them be. Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn wrote about the rights that could never be taken from him, because he wouldn't allow them to be taken. He wrote from a Gulag. He made the world aware of the Gulags. He wouldn't allow his right to speak freely to be taken away. He said that the government would never take it away... they could only take his life.

Our founding fathers understood that very clearly. We control what rights we have and don't have. The Constitution puts limits on the government, but we are the ones that must force the government to stay within those limits.

[Greenhat]

The Constitution doesn't GRANT any rights so those which are not enumerated are left to the states so w/ no 2nd amd that is where freedom to keep/bear arms would be... with the states.

It's the Tenth Amendment (the last of the Bill of Rights) that enumerates that... and also to the people. Without a Bill of Rights, that restriction doesn't exist either.

[btq96r]

Actually, it is very clear. The "militia" portion is a non-dependant clause... meaning it gives reason, not requirement. The key part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Pretty damn clear in my opinion.

This was written in a time where America didn't have a sufficiently sized standing Army for defense and we didn't have the structure of Police we do today. Thus, the Militia was absolutely necessary for the security of a free state. Thats the reason behind the amendment's wording. My argument was that with our time being what it is, the wording is outdated.

I personally want gun rights, but I believe its implementation should be on the States and that the federal government should have no input one way or the other. Thus my desire (it will never happen) to have the 2nd Amendment changed to just restrict the government from legislating this issue and leave it to the States to accomplish.

[shady1]

O.K. :eek: I am somewhat surprised. I also saw similar views shared by, Home Depot, Barnes and Noble and several other large retailers. This is going to get very interesting and precedent setting. I just heard a conflicting interview from a prominent attorney that leaves me confused as to the legality of these retailers being able to ban open carry from their stores even
if they wanted to. This, due to the fact that they are operating public retail stores in states that allow open carry of a handgun. :confused:

http://opencarry.org/
Note: scroll down, 2nd topic under hot issues




Is it the fact that they are publicly traded companies, or simply because they allow public access. I ask this because I have recently been thrust into a similar situation and questioned law enforcement and my local court system as to my legal rights and there are some discrepancies.

[GackMan]

O.K. :eek: I am somewhat surprised. I also saw similar views shared by, Home Depot, Barnes and Noble and several other large retailers. This is going to get very interesting and precedent setting. I just heard a conflicting interview from a prominent attorney that leaves me confused as to the legality of these retailers being able to ban open carry from their stores even
if they wanted to. This, due to the fact that they are operating public retail stores in states that allow open carry of a handgun. :confused:

http://opencarry.org/
Note: scroll down, 2nd topic under hot issues




Is it the fact that they are publicly traded companies, or simply because they allow public access. I ask this because I have recently been thrust into a similar situation and questioned law enforcement and my local court system as to my legal rights and there are some discrepancies.

Should probably start another thread to discuss the Starbucks open carry phenomenon.

But... Interesting how? It is private property. They can ban people from comming into their property for all kinds of reasons - no shoes, wearing a hat, etc.

Starbucks' stance has been that thy allow open carry where it is legal.

I don't see them as being pro-open carry. Just smart enough to not insert themselves into a political issue.

[bobofthedesert]

That demented midget Daley has steam coming out of his ears......God I love it.....

Fuck him. He's been stealing from people for decades. I hope he strokes out over this. There are only a few mayors in America who are as anti-gun as he is. I remember listening to him being sworn in as mayor when he was first elected, swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution, and within minutes of taking the oath he was babbling about more gun laws to make the streets safer. This little POS has been protected by gun carrying bodyguards for most of his life. Fuck him. :mad:

[NWPTrainer]

I fully agree. The rights existed, as a fundamental human right, before the Constitution was written. So how can writing it down allow someone to take it away?

It doesn't. What it does it bring that right to the attention of people who really never gave it any thought.....If I say, "I have the right to stand on my head, in a pink tutu, while sucking a zebra's dick!" Your first response would be, "WTF?" Your second response might be (if you were a typical statist, and maybe an animal rights activist), "No! You can't! That's taking advantage of the zebra and it's love of pink flamingos! It's not fair to the zebra or to pink flamingos!"

If I'd never written the right down, you'd have never tried to control it. Partly because the idea is so far outside of your frame of reference. In point of fact, I DO have the right to stand on my head, wearing a pink tutu, while sucking the cock of a zebra.....as long as the zebra belongs to me and I do it in a place and manner that doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights! Even if you try to restrict my right to do so, whether by outlawing the ownership of zebras, or pink tutus, or standing on my head, I still have the inalienable (meaning you can't take it from me. No one can justly.) right to do what I want with my body and my property (including spending my money, time, or labor for something as absurd and useless as a fucking zebra--a tutu on the other hand, might be useful......:D). It might land me in your prison, but that would be an unjust imprisonment.

So, long story and bizarre example notwithstanding, there was really no reason that it was necessary to put the restrictions on the government in writing, as regards our natural inalienable rights....Even if they weren't written down, they'd still be ours and the government still wouldn't have a right to infringe or legislate them.

Even the states and cities don't have the right to do so, despite my stand on States' rights and the 10th Amendment. The power of the states should never overwhelm the rights of the people, collectively or individually.

[shady1]

Should probably start another thread to discuss the Starbucks open carry phenomenon.

I meant to make note relating to current thread. But your right , it should be new. Thanx.

[NWPTrainer]

I just read a quote that is apt for this conversation....

"If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Greenhat]

This was written in a time where America didn't have a sufficiently sized standing Army for defense and we didn't have the structure of Police we do today. Thus, the Militia was absolutely necessary for the security of a free state. Thats the reason behind the amendment's wording. My argument was that with our time being what it is, the wording is outdated.

I personally want gun rights, but I believe its implementation should be on the States and that the federal government should have no input one way or the other. Thus my desire (it will never happen) to have the 2nd Amendment changed to just restrict the government from legislating this issue and leave it to the States to accomplish.

The 2d Amendment has nothing to do with standing Armies or Police. Never has. It has to do with protecting the people from their government. Read the Federalist Papers and the works of Thomas Jefferson. Consider that the militia had not fought as a standing army or as a police force in the war finished not long before, but in rebellion against the government - against a standing army who was housed in their homes, that seized their weapons, that enforced laws. The 2d Amendment says EXACTLY what it means. The ability of some people to claim that it means otherwise is nonsense. The militia was not necessary to the security of the state (free or otherwise), it was necessary to the freedom from tyranny. Still is. Standing armies and police forces are historically not good protectors from internally generated tyrants - when is the last time you saw the military or a police force take action to protect the people from our government?

[kosty]

The 2d Amendment has nothing to do with standing Armies or Police. Never has. It has to do with protecting the people from their government. Read the Federalist Papers and the works of Thomas Jefferson. Consider that the militia had not fought as a standing army or as a police force in the war finished not long before, but in rebellion against the government - against a standing army who was housed in their homes, that seized their weapons, that enforced laws. The 2d Amendment says EXACTLY what it means. The ability of some people to claim that it means otherwise is nonsense. The militia was not necessary to the security of the state (free or otherwise), it was necessary to the freedom from tyranny. Still is. Standing armies and police forces are historically not good protectors from internally generated tyrants - when is the last time you saw the military or a police force take action to protect the people from our government?

That's exactly how I understand it (in it's historical context). Good thing the NRA isn't arguing within that context - the justices wouldn't give it any consideration.

[iraqgunz]

Another thing I would like to see go away is the Lautenberg Amendment. I think it's a violation of civil rights and with the recent decision/ opinion handed down by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals who knows......

[Greenhat]

That's exactly how I understand it (in it's historical context). Good thing the NRA isn't arguing within that context - the justices wouldn't give it any consideration.

I'm not so sure. I think that someone should start arguing the Constitution as written, and get the SCOTUS off of the "practical application of government" nonsense. The Constitution is not supposed to make it easy to govern, it's supposed to make it hard.

[wowzers]

Another thing I would like to see go away is the Lautenberg Amendment. I think it's a violation of civil rights and with the recent decision/ opinion handed down by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals who knows......

I agree with you. I understand the thought behind it, but there was an instance that someone discussed on here before where a Iraq veteran punched a sibling brother/cousin for throwing a fire cracker at them and was charged with domestic violence.

[kosty]

I'm not so sure. I think that someone should start arguing the Constitution as written, and get the SCOTUS off of the "practical application of government" nonsense. The Constitution is not supposed to make it easy to govern, it's supposed to make it hard.
I agree that it would be ideal to argue the meaning of the Constitution, but I think it would take extraordinary circumstances to get there. SCOTUS don't debate law at whim, they need a legal case to make it through the appeals process, and they only address that case and what it entails. What kind of legal case would it take to address the issue of the right of the people to own weapons capable of successfully rebelling and overthrowing the US government?
The Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the President the power to use US troops to quell rebellion. The Posse Comitatus act would require Congress to approve it, which would be a no brainer. The Civil war might have given a good test case, but there was no appeal, by design.
I agree with the principle that the people need arms to resist tyranny, I just don't see how the Supreme Court will ever discuss the issue.

[Greenhat]

What kind of legal case would it take to address the issue of the right of the people to own weapons capable of successfully rebelling and overthrowing the US government?

Any gun control case. Any.

Simply argue the law is unconstitutional and violates a citizen's rights based on the core phrase of the 2d Amendment: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

1934 and 1968 GCAs? Inherently unconstitutional. Just about any gun control that applied to any citizen without individual trial first? Inherently unconstitutional.

Never happen. NRA's lawyers are afraid that such an argument is rolling the dice and could lose it all. Thing is, it is what the Constitution says. Win or lose, it would be the end of paydays for NRA lawyers... lawyers don't argue cases to put themselves out of business.

[grog18b]

NRA's lawyers are afraid that such an argument is rolling the dice and could lose it all. Thing is, it is what the Constitution says. Win or lose, it would be the end of paydays for NRA lawyers... lawyers don't argue cases to put themselves out of business.

Exactly.

That's why they gave up on the Machine gun legislation in 1986 and let those regs pass.

The meaning of the 2nd, is pretty cut and dry when you look at it. Like I said, it doesn't keep people from trying.

When people in Government come to the realization that laws and bans do not effect criminals, and that jailing some people for life(or building electric bleachers) cures criminals, this Nation will rock.

I think we are about to see some pretty hardcore legislation against sex offenders coming down...

[SOTB]

I think we are about to see some pretty hardcore legislation against sex offenders coming down...Sadly, heartbrokenly, I don't agree with you. I really, REALLY wish I could, though....:frown:

[kosty]

Any gun control case. Any.

Simply argue the law is unconstitutional and violates a citizen's rights based on the core phrase of the 2d Amendment: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
...
Never happen. NRA's lawyers are afraid that such an argument is rolling the dice and could lose it all. Thing is, it is what the Constitution says. Win or lose, it would be the end of paydays for NRA lawyers... lawyers don't argue cases to put themselves out of business.
After reviewing how the current case (McDonald vs Chicago) got to SCOTUS, I can see how a lawsuit could be filed for any of the violations you mentioned. It would still require the members of SCOTUS to decide that it was worth hearing. They can reject a case for any reason, including a lack of courage, and don't have to tell you why! Part of the Lawyer's job is to recognize what arguments will be considered. In the current case the court rejected the arguments of Alan Gura and accepted the arguments of the NRA.

In theory I agree with you, but I don't think it will ever happen.

[grog18b]

Sadly, heartbrokenly, I don't agree with you. I really, REALLY wish I could, though....:frown:

:smile: I know... It is wishful thinking again... These new meds have me with that bright cheery outlook in my happy place all the time feelings... I hate it. :biggrin: I gotta go work on my guns some more...

[Gypsy]

That demented midget Daley has steam coming out of his ears......God I love it.....

Fuck him. He's been stealing from people for decades. I hope he strokes out over this. There are only a few mayors in America who are as anti-gun as he is. I remember listening to him being sworn in as mayor when he was first elected, swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution, and within minutes of taking the oath he was babbling about more gun laws to make the streets safer. This little POS has been protected by gun carrying bodyguards for most of his life. Fuck him. :mad:

:biggrin: He is a demented midget, for starters.

His comment about "if everyone needs guns then why can't I carry one to the hearing huh?" (paraphrasing) was one of THE most idiotic things I have heard him say. Freaking jackass. :rolleyes: I used to go into the city all the time after I moved to the burbs...for several years now I have refused to spend one cent of my hard earned cash anywhere in Crook County.

[kosty]

:biggrin: He is a demented midget, for starters.

His comment about "if everyone needs guns then why can't I carry one to the hearing huh?" (paraphrasing) was one of THE most idiotic things I have heard him say. Freaking jackass. :rolleyes:
If you dislike Daley, you are my friend.