Supreme Court Shoots Down Chicago Gun Law

[bigbadberry3]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us. ... tml?hpt=T2

Thoughts?

I'm fairly anti gun in general as I don't see the need for fully automatic laser scoped rifles with armor piercing ammunition but then again I see the need to protect oneself.

[stebo0728]

...and gave the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow Americans expanded weapon ownership rights.

Wow if thats not a left leaning statement, I dont know what is ... gave another chance to allow?!? How bout gave another chance to clarify constitutionality of gun ownership?

Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right or as a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias and therefore subject, perhaps, to strict government regulation? And is that regulation limited to federal laws, or can it be applied to local communities?

How can a collective right exist without an individual right at its base?

Couldnt read much beyond that at the moment, but I applaud the ruling of the court today. Long overdue. When you take guns out of the hands of responsible law abiding citizens, you send crime rates through the roof, endangering lives in the process. Aside from a few loose cannons, you cant find consistent valid examples of people who have gun permits committing gun crimes. When you pass gun laws, you merely limit the law abiders, forget criminals, you cant affect gun levels in the hands of criminals, they are getting them illegally anyway in most cases. All you do is make their prey easier targets. And as far as the well regulated militia goes. That IS IS IS IS our job as citizens. We merely place this job in the hands of police and military because we'd rather not do it ourselves. But it is our job, and there is no such thing as taking the law into your own hands, the law IS in your own hands. Im not advocating vigilantism, if the local law enforcement has proven competent enough to do their job thats great, but if they dont, and you have to defend yourself, that is well within your rights to do. That doesnt mean seek out and kill the guy who killed your daughter, that denies the person due process, but if you apprehend them yourself and remand them into police custody, more power to you!

[stebo0728]

I don't see the need for fully automatic laser scoped rifles with armor piercing ammunition

And on this note, that statement is a bit allegorical. Do you know how the assault weapons ban even came into existence? No joke, Mrs Pelosi herself commandeered a gun and rifle catalog, went through it, and said "oh this looks menacing, this looks scary, this is probably ok, etc ...." And the ban list was produced, how is that any kind of rational thinking.

I agree with you that people dont need to go overboard in maintaining a defense plan in their home, but if we are gonna have ban on "assault weapons" lets at least take an educated stab at creating the ban list.

[UpStar]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us. ... tml?hpt=T2

Thoughts?

I'm fairly anti gun in general as I don't see the need for fully automatic laser scoped rifles with armor piercing ammunition but then again I see the need to protect oneself.

Leave our guns and second amendment alone! I'm having a hard time understand how you would use the most extreme example to move your point when it comes to guns. Your whole example of the “fully automatic laser scoped rifles with armor piercing ammunition” is far from what this is about.

[bigbadberry3]

I know the court ruled on handguns but it has much further reachings. If a hand gun ban had been justified as legal then it would have been a stepping stone to outlawing larger and more powerful weaponry .

[stebo0728]

Upholding rights is not a cascading event, its the denial of rights that cascades into denial of more and more rights...

[bigbadberry3]

Stuff like this just kind of annoys me though

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100628/us_nm/us_guns_utah

[stebo0728]

Amen to that!

Bedrock conservatism is enjoying a surge with the rise of the Tea Party movement, which advocates small government, individual rights ...

Note the undertones of demonization here ... "enjoying" hell ya were enjoying the fact that americans are finally waking up a little towards the complete and utter dismissal of private property rights, among other diminished rights, who wouldnt enjoy a return to complete constitutionalism? Oh wait I forgot about the liberals ... bahh

[bigbadberry3]

So it's slanted a little bit, enjoy the freedom of the press!

[BusyBadger]

Leave our guns and second amendment alone! I'm having a hard time understand how you would use the most extreme example to move your point when it comes to guns. Your whole example of the “fully automatic laser scoped rifles with armor piercing ammunition” is far from what this is about.

Wow, for the first time ever we're in agreement.

For me it's not even about guns. It's about the ability & legality of state and local governments to make laws that limit the inherent strength of and rights provided by the Constitution (10th Ammendment notwithstanding). Is there anyone out there that believes the vote would have been 5-4 if the issue at hand was a fight over something like the 1st or 4th Ammendments (to name just a couple)?

[AZhitman]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us. ... tml?hpt=T2

Thoughts?

I'm fairly anti gun in general as I don't see the need for fully automatic laser scoped rifles with armor piercing ammunition but then again I see the need to protect oneself.

Leave our guns and second amendment alone! I'm having a hard time understand how you would use the most extreme example to move your point when it comes to guns. Your whole example of the “fully automatic laser scoped rifles with armor piercing ammunition” is far from what this is about.

Wow.

Did you hit your head?

That's a great post!!!

[AZhitman]

For each nincompoop worrying and fretting about laser sights, full-auto submachine guns, large-caliber semi-auto handguns, armor-piercing rounds, short-barrel shotguns and shoulder-mounted bazookas.... there's a THOUSAND punkass kids with stolen Chinese-built .22s who are WAY more likely to shoot your whining a$$ because you looked at them the wrong way.

I'll be shopping for a personal-carry piece here soon.

[IBCoupe]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us. ... tml?hpt=T2

Thoughts?

I'm fairly anti gun in general as I don't see the need for fully automatic laser scoped rifles with armor piercing ammunition but then again I see the need to protect oneself.

This was a predictable outcome. Prior to this ruling, this is one of the few amendments to the U.S. Constitution whose power hadn't been extended to apply to State & local governments, as well.

This ruling holds that outright bans on handguns are illegal, when imposed by any level of our government. It might serve to undermine outright bans on other guns, too, but not "reasonable limitations" on the right to own a firearm. In other words, this does nothing to undermined strict restrictions on permits and felony/misdemeanor-related bans.

On the Second Amendment, as a whole, my view is complicated. The Amendment itself is, in every way, outdated. Devised in a time where people in many parts of the country had to hunt to survive, and lived in regions that were often relatively lawless, the Second Amendment was established in a country that differed drastically from the one we live in today.

One other principle, however, that prevents me from wholeheartedly supporting its repeal, was that which caused the country to be formed in the first place. The ability of the People to do physical violence is one thing that keeps a tyrannical government from blossoming on American soil.

The only problem with that principle is that, again, we live in a world today where this is not really possible. The technologies available to the public and the technologies available to the government are of such stark disparity that the thought of any successful grassroots-rebellion is laughable. Granted, some of that is reinforced by the fact that we outlaw some of those technology and keep them out of private hands. But even if we didn't, the only people who would be able to afford the most effective technologies are those who are in such a position as to benefit greatly from the status quo. And those who benefit from the status quo are given a great disincentive towards changing it.

The Second Amendment: the idealist in me loves the heck out of it, but the pragmatist in me realizes that it's just about worthless.

[stebo0728]

On the Second Amendment, as a whole, my view is complicated. The Amendment itself is, in every way, outdated. Devised in a time where people in many parts of the country had to hunt to survive, and lived in regions that were often relatively lawless, the Second Amendment was established in a country that differed drastically from the one we live in today.

I hear this argument all the time, and I couldnt not disagree with it more. Though I agree, it was a different day and age when the Constitution was written, the 2nd Ammendment was NOT for hunting purposes. Although you may not intend it this way, perhaps youve just bought into it, but that notion is a red-herring, devised as a distraction to the underlying disagreement of constitutionality of gun ownership. Clearly hunting was a necessary purpose for gun ownership, but the intent of the 2nd Ammendment as not to be sure people could kill food, but rather that the PEOPLE, the ones who are truly in control, have the ability to maintain a well regulated militia. Keep in mind at the time we were just barely escaping the grasp of England, other European powers could possibly decide to prey upon our new found liberty, and not to mention the constant scuffles with the natives. We had no well established, fully functional military. At any time any community could be called to take up arms, and if they had no arms to take up, where would that leave them? Now you say, ok sounds solid but we have a well established, fully functional military now. Big deal, we have also not had to deal with any foreign insurgencies on our own soil since (Im not a complete history buff, maybe the Texas, Mexico war?) Anyway its been a while. When (NOT IF) we have to deal with war on our soil, what do we do when we are all spineless helpless worker drones? Defense is first and foremost OUR responsibility. We delegate this to our military, but should they fail, or fall short, it falls once again on OUR OWN BACKS to further the fight. This is the first and foremost design factor for the 2nd Ammendment.

[IBCoupe]

Though I did write the passage you have quoted, Stebo, it didn't come close to being the core of my argument.

As to a foreign insurgency? The countries that could mount an invasion of American soil aren't the countries that would be stopped by what we allow our populace to have. It's the same criticism as that leveled toward the home-grown insurgence argument.

[stebo0728]

Admittedly I gave a bit of a knee-jerk rebuttal there, and I know your position is a bit more complex than how I generalized it. My rebuttal was directed not so much at your position specifically, but the many I have encountered the do generalize their position to that one point. I agree adversaries that could launch campaigns on our soil would be more than civilian militia alone could handle, but our military operates with such scrutiny now, second guessing, over analysis of situations. The guerrilla warfare that civilian forces could offer could make the difference in the battle. Not win the war on its own, but just tip the scales enough to win. This is all theoretical and assumption based of course, and how many civilians today would even care to fight, especially inner city civilians, which is where we would likely be hit first. But regardless of the outcome, the 2nd Ammendment seeks to give us that fighting chance.

[WDRacing]

For each nincompoop worrying and fretting about laser sights, full-auto submachine guns, large-caliber semi-auto handguns, armor-piercing rounds, short-barrel shotguns and shoulder-mounted bazookas.... there's a THOUSAND punkass kids with stolen Chinese-built .22s who are WAY more likely to shoot your whining a$$ because you looked at them the wrong way.

I'll be shopping for a personal-carry piece here soon.

I was going to say something similar, but that about sums up my thoughts Where I grew up North of Boston the Asian gangs were awful and extremely violent.

BTW, a .22 is small but dangerous as hell. My friend was shot with one that entered below the right shoulder. The bullet ended up lodged in the bottom of his left lung after bouncing around his upper body tearing s*** up.

[AZhitman]

The ability of the People to do physical violence is one thing that keeps a tyrannical government from blossoming on American soil.

Agreed 100%

The technologies available to the public and the technologies available to the government are of such stark disparity that the thought of any successful grassroots-rebellion is laughable.

Possible. But then again, never underestimate the power of a bunch of pissed-off revolutionaries fighting for their way of life. Especially when the opponent is a skinny, upper-crust, Harvard-educated pacifist "community organizer". I'd put money on the revolutionaries, especially after 90% of the military goes rogue and mutinies.

The Second Amendment: the idealist in me loves the heck out of it, but the pragmatist in me realizes that it's just about worthless.

Also, agreed. But let's leave it in place, just in case.

Even if it's just to remind everyone that SOME Americans still have some shred of independence, liberty, and self-sufficiency.

[IBCoupe]

Possible. But then again, never underestimate the power of a bunch of pissed-off revolutionaries fighting for their way of life. Especially when the opponent is a skinny, upper-crust, Harvard-educated pacifist "community organizer". I'd put money on the revolutionaries, especially after 90% of the military goes rogue and mutinies.

Hate to say it, Greg, but if President Obama fits the "tyrannical government" bill in your mind, you're just plain unimaginative. What's the worst thing this administration has done to individual liberty? Failed to remove the federal income tax?

I don't like to make these kinds of remarks about such recent administrations, but between warrantless wiretapping of American citizens and outing under-cover CIA agents in an act of political revenge, the previous administration came a lot closer to being called "tyrannical," but I don't think they were quite there.

That's not to say that you're wrong. It's entirely possible that's what would happen if the Obama Administration sought to oppress the American people. I'm just saying: I don't think that's the kind of thing that's likely to happen. What's likely to happen is something far more gradual, and far more careful. You won't see a tyrant trying to use a military that publicly displays, in violation of military regulations, its displeasure with him.

[stebo0728]

How about the rights and liberties of doctors he is getting ready to irradicate?

EDIT - Sorry misplaced modifier, the intention of the statement is not that he is going to irradicate doctors (though that may be a side effect) but I meant he is irradicating rights and liberties of doctors

[AZhitman]

What's the worst thing this administration has done to individual liberty? Failed to remove the federal income tax?

I'm far from unimaginative.

Here's a start:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... lic-health (too many personal liberty violations to count).

Gulf drilling moratorium (for no apparent reason).

Broad disregards for Miranda (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/ ... -liberties).

Demanding funds from a private company to reimburse citizens affected by the oil spill (not his role).

Nationalization of the banking and auto industry.

Failure to nominate anyone to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

Mandating that citizens purchase insurance under threat of Federal sanctions (healthcare reform).

Continuation and support of warrantless wiretaps and non-appealable no-fly lists; also see Extraordinary Rendition Case - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10 ... .html?_r=2

I'm sure there are more that I've either forgotten or am not terribly informed about, and of course all are debateable. While several are new threats to individual liberties, many were criticized by the Left as Bush-era relics, yet they continue unabated.

I don't make such statements lightly. I thought you'd have learned that about me by now. And contrary to popular opinion, none of this brings me joy - it's depressing and frightening.

[stebo0728]

Nationalization of the banking and auto industry.

Lets be fair and unpartisan though, remember Bush started this trend, at least with the banks, surprised the heck outta me to see him do it too!

[bigbadberry3]

Gulf drilling moratorium (for no apparent reason).

You're kidding right?

[stebo0728]

I think maybe he meant to say, unnecessary drilling moratorium instead of "for no apparent reason" lol ... there was an apparent reason to do it, just dont think it was necessary, and will hurt us economically more than it will help anything.

[AZhitman]

Gulf drilling moratorium (for no apparent reason).

You're kidding right?

I don't "kid". Not in here, at least.

But, I'll sit back and listen while you explain to me why an intellectual pinhead's knee-jerk response to one little accident (yes, LITTLE in the grand scheme of things) should put thousands and thousands of innocent, hard-working people out of work.

Did we shut down all nuclear plants after TMI or Chernobyl? No. Because they were isolated incidents, anomalies at best.

You can explain to all those good people why they don't have a job anymore. Then, you can explain how you can reconcile that loss of jobs with the alleged increase in jobs created by the "stimulus" package.

I'm twiddling my thumbs.

[IBCoupe]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... lic-health (too many personal liberty violations to count).

An advisory panel? Is this really what you meant to link here?

Gulf drilling moratorium (for no apparent reason).

The big difference between this and something like Three Mile Island is that it illustrates the vast technological inadequacies we currently enjoy. If you were tasked with managing and preventing oil spills like these, Greg, you might as well be sitting on the thumbs you're twiddling. When failsafe after failsafe fail, one is left to wonder: what exactly constitutes a "failsafe" these days?

So, yeah. There was an apparent reason, and I don't believe it's hurting anyone's liberties.

Broad disregards for Miranda (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/ ... -liberties).

Motherjones got in a tiff because President Obama stated that, in regards to all the complaints that he's mirandizing terror suspects, he would be open to reinterpretation and perhaps slight modification to miranda rules. All the articles complaining about this sort of thing appear at around May 10th, but when I jump ahead a month to June 10th, I see President Obama ordering that suspects in Afghanistan be given Miranda rights, and being lambasted by the right for it. As far as I can tell, Miranda rights have not changed since.

Demanding funds from a private company to reimburse citizens affected by the oil spill (not his role).

Where the company has already admitted that it's their fault and has promised to pay all legitimate claims? "Not his role" is a far cry from "injuring personal liberties."

Nationalization of the banking and auto industry.

The banking industry was not nationalized, though there was worldwide outcry, demanding that the United States do that. A glance at history suggested that, were it any other nation on Earth, we'd be demanding exactly that from them.

And we haven't nationalized the auto industry. At worst, we've nationalized one auto company, and that doesn't strike me as particularly harmful to individual liberty, especially given that A) there's nothing that indicates that this is permanent, and B) the alternative to bailing out the American auto industry was to let Detroit become a wasteland.

Failure to nominate anyone to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

Which was already dead long before he was even elected. Come on.

Mandating that citizens purchase insurance under threat of Federal sanctions (healthcare reform).

Probably your closest thing yet to a violation of individual rights, and it's not particularly tyrannical - it's the only way to make the system work at an affordable rate, and the Republicans admitted as much in 1994.

Continuation and support of warrantless wiretaps and non-appealable no-fly lists; also see Extraordinary Rendition Case - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10 ... .html?_r=2

I can't get to your link. But the warrantless wiretapping complaints involve lawsuits - the Obama Administration is using the same arguments to defend warrantless wiretapping as the Bush Administration (which, in March, failed to be persuasive). It's probable that they just didn't want to start over with a completely new line of legal reasoning (especially if it's the best argument that can be found). The no-fly list is relatively small, and it involves keeping a closer eye on certain terrorism suspects. Can it be abused? Yes. But I'm seeing no indication that it has been abused. Actual tyranny? No.

Yes, some of this stuff is scary. Part of my opposition to the start of it in the previous administration was that, like a Pandora's box of sorts, it opens up the door for future administrations, and here we are. But Obama's not using it against the American people (yet?) and it seems premature to call him a tyrant.

[audtatious]

Chicago has now determined they will implement a ban on owning multiple guns as a result of this ruling.

[bigbadberry3]

Chicago has now determined they will implement a ban on owning multiple guns as a result of this ruling.

Daley already decided against that in favor of limiting people to registering one gun per month. I was interested in seeing how being limited to one gun per adult would have worked out legally though.

[IBCoupe]

That seems to be on shakier ground than simply banning certain types of guns.

[bigbadberry3]

Here's the actual link to Daley's/Chicago's gun plan http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9GMEC7O1