Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

Says second amendment applies to to the states, too.
Article said:
In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois' 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its two-year-old conclusion the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.
Wow. Here's a big :thumbup: for the supreme court.
 

krischan

Europe Trade Moderator
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

I have no problems with the decision. It's not my business and firing guns is surely fun. We have our autobahns instead :D

A court actually doesn't do anything to find the consent of the people. That's what the government is supposed to do (indirectly, with the threat of the next election). Court decisions are meant to be based on nothing but the law. If you like their decision, it's fine. If you don't like it, complaining about the court would be missing the point while it's actually the law which had to be criticized - and thus the parliament.
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

I have no problems with the decision.
I'm in favor of it an even I have problems with it. =P

The standard used to reach this decision was not taken from the Privileges and Immunities clause of the constitution, which would have made state governments as beholden to the second amendment as the federal government, but from the Due Process clause, which simply means that the states cannot presumptively declare that a person cannot be allowed to own a handgun, with no due process given.

The difference between the two standards is apparent if we use an analogy and change the amendment in question from the second to the first. Imagine Chicago had a law saying that you couldn't criticize any elected city official at any time. Also imagine, that when you went to the supreme court and challenged this law under the first amendment, they said "The first amendment really only applies to the federal government, and not to state and local government. However, we will limit them and say they can only restrict the speech of people through due process instead."

Sure, it's nice that they slapped down an obviously unconstitutional law, but at the same time they left the path wide open for other "lesser" restrictions of free speech. Instead of "no one can ever criticize an elected city official" law, you get laws like "No convicted felon can ever criticize an elected city official" or "No one is permitted to criticize a city official in public" or "No one is permitted to use the following words when discussing a city official" and so on.

Blech.



 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

Wow. Here's a big :thumbup: for the supreme court.
:coffee: Oklahoma has no ban on handguns. In fact, shotgun pistols are legal; you can carry handguns concealed with a easily-obtained permit, and buy them without a waiting period at gun shows. While Supreme Court decisions certainly carry some ramifications, this one doesn't make much difference if you happen to live in the Wild West state of Okieville.



 

BobCox2

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

Except I find the "check your guns here", and "no guns allowed beyond this point" signs to be a tip off that I better go healed in this ****.
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

Except I find the "check your guns here", and "no guns allowed beyond this point" signs to be a tip off that I better go healed in this ****.
That's right Pardner. Unless your name is William Munny, I would suggest you check-in your firearms. Little Bill might not like it.



 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

Article said:
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer predicated far-reaching implications. "Incorporating the right," he wrote, "may change the law in many of the 50 states.
WTF does Breyer think all his activist crap has done over the years? That's what pisses me off the most about Supremes and law in general - just because someone made a decision years ago doesn't mean it was a smart decision to begin with.

Just consider Roe v. Wade. It's absolute bullcrap, as a decision. Abortion should be a legislative matter, not pulled out of their arse pretending it's somehow a right to privacy. It's as stinking as finding Constitutional grounds for death penalty, religious doctrine, or health insurance.
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

this one doesn't make much difference if you happen to live in the Wild West state of Okieville.
I live in Florida, the definition of a "shall-issue state", so it won't really affect me either. I like seeing the supreme court stand up for the constitution once in a while, though. It's so rare these days . . .
WTF does Breyer think all his activist crap has done over the years?
You're not the only one who found that quote sad.

"But, but, but . . . if we rule for the constitution, it might make someone change the law!!!"



 

Amra

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

Court decisions are meant to be based on nothing but the law. If you like their decision, it's fine. If you don't like it, complaining about the court would be missing the point while it's actually the law which had to be criticized - and thus the parliament.
Key words there: "meant to be". Sadly, too often the court makes law rather than interpret it. Consider (in the USA) right to privacy and Roe v. Wade (abortion). You won't find those in the Constitution. Yet there the court goes finding the decision in the "emanations from the penumbra".

Sure, it's nice that they slapped down an obviously unconstitutional law, but at the same time they left the path wide open for other "lesser" restrictions of free speech. Instead of "no one can ever criticize an elected city official" law, you get laws like "No convicted felon can ever criticize an elected city official" or "No one is permitted to criticize a city official in public" or "No one is permitted to use the following words when discussing a city official" and so on.
Well put.

Just consider Roe v. Wade. It's absolute bullcrap, as a decision. Abortion should be a legislative matter, not pulled out of their arse pretending it's somehow a right to privacy. It's as stinking as finding Constitutional grounds for death penalty, religious doctrine, or health insurance.
Good read.



 

Dacar92

Moderator: Community, D2 Zon, DH, Inc Clan Officer
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

Living in Illinois I have watched this play out during the last decade or so. I so enjoy watching Chicago and Cook County politics. Mayor Daley has tried to equalize guns with the level of violence in his city. Surely there is no connection since criminals do not register their guns.

But he is now talking about several other ways to keep lawful citizens from owning guns. He'll require a hefty fee (like a $5000 or $10,000 licensing fee), or insurance that no company will write, or other ways to make it very difficult for people like me to lawfully own a gun in Chicago.
 

krischan

Europe Trade Moderator
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

Key words there: "meant to be". Sadly, too often the court makes law rather than interpret it. Consider (in the USA) right to privacy and Roe v. Wade (abortion). You won't find those in the Constitution. Yet there the court goes finding the decision in the "emanations from the penumbra".
If the Supreme Court makes a decision which nobody likes, the parliament has to change the constitution to make things more precise on these matters :p



 

Tanooki

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

Come January, Iowa is becoming a "shall issue" state (instead of a "may issue - are you on friendly terms with your county sheriff?" state). At that point, I will be obtaining a license and plan to purchase a handgun. My employer (assuming I still work there come January) has a notice posted that no weapons or firearms are allowed on the premises. That kind of ticks me off.

If someone wanted to go in there and start shooting people, they're virtually guaranteed defenseless victims.
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

My employer (assuming I still work there come January) has a notice posted that no weapons or firearms are allowed on the premises. That kind of ticks me off.
Florida passed a law (that I oppose, FYI), the prohibits employers from preventing licensed concealed carriers from bringing guns onto company property. It doesn't apply to me, however, because defense contractors are exempted, so I can't even keep one in my car. T_T



 

BobCox2

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

I know I guy who was fired cause he used the CO Credit card to buy ammo and they misshipped it to the firms address.

If they had shipped to his house and he paid the bill on time it would have been no problem.
 

DoW Fanatic

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

Florida passed a law (that I oppose, FYI), the prohibits employers from preventing licensed concealed carriers from bringing guns onto company property. It doesn't apply to me, however, because defense contractors are exempted, so I can't even keep one in my car. T_T
I hope my state follows suit. Several people have been robbed/mugged and severely beaten in our parking lot, including elderly ladies. I work the late shift nearly every night and it's a long walk out to my motorcycle. If my employer actually had security outside it wouldn't be an issue. Since they don't though, I don't feel bad for carrying my handgun to work.


 

Dacar92

Moderator: Community, D2 Zon, DH, Inc Clan Officer
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

Latest news from the Windy City is that they're going to try to limit the number of guns you can own to one. The city attorney today said that one handgun is sufficient and in a sound bite I heard this morning she said she couldn't understand why anyone would want more.

http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=1859413&spid=

Excuse the article. It looks like some paragraphs got doubled up.
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

I hope my state follows suit.
As I said before, I'm not a proponent of such laws. I support both gun rights and property rights. I believe you have a right to own a gun, but I also believe you have the right to disallow guns on your private property if you so choose.



 

Tanooki

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

I love how Chicago's mayor equates legal gun ownership with gun violence.

It'd be like trying to cut down on pedophilia by castrating all 15-18 year olds, since they're the group most likely to try having sex with a 16 year old girl.
 

BobCox2

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Chicago Gun Ban

Latest news from the Windy City is that they're going to try to limit the number of guns you can own to one. The city attorney today said that one handgun is sufficient and in a sound bite I heard this morning she said she couldn't understand why anyone would want more.
http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=1859413&spid=

Excuse the article. It looks like some paragraphs got doubled up.
"Macedonian" Shooting

"Tamanzev went to Moscow and demonstrated his skill in Macedonian shooting to a large group of officers and generals."
V. Bogomolov, "August, 1944"

The method of shooting with two double-action revolvers simultaneously appeared in the end of the 19th century. The self-loading pistol wasn't around, but the need of fast, heavy firiing at a group target always was. Also, the method could also be used against a moving target, when stopping of the target needed to be guaranteed, especially when the shooter is not skilled at leading the target.
When using two handguns simultaneously keep both hands tightly pressed to each other, holding them together with your thumbs, as shown in the photograph (scanner dead, will put it up later - MB). Using this grip method, you can apply clean, exact aimed fire from double action revolvers, even when not cocked initially. You can fire one revolver, then another, or both at once when needed. Officers of the Tzar's counter-intelligence service (and later, the Soviet one) used that method with two Nagants: 14 round are better than 7.
You can fire at close targets, up to 20m "from the hip", after having trained according to the "muscle memory" training system with lit silhoette targets. If confronting a target farther away by aiming at the target with a sight of one of the handguns, orienting the other according to the "muscle memory" of a correct shot. If you can, look at the target between the guns, orienting it according to the "pendulum" of the muscle efforts inherent in a correct shot.
When using two automatic pistols, the "macedonian" shooting method allows fire density at the same level of a submachinegun and even better - the groups are going to be tighter. This method can be used to cause the opponent to go prone and hold him in that position up to 100 m away. When shooting with this method on the move, use the "cross-step" (see later in this book). If shooting this way at a target that runs in the same direction as you do, work in the same way as against an immobile target. If the target and the shooter are moving in different directions, leading by spinning of the torso is far easier in the cros-step than when not moving at all It is impossible to overestimate the value of this method for an operator who cannot carry an assault rifle or submachinegun due to the need for covert work. It was used both by ours' and the Germans' special services. It was used as long as the possibility to get a second handgun was available. During the 50-es, massive confiscations of non-issued weapons from the operating staff began, and operators were not issued a second handgun, and as the old-timers left service, the method of two-handgun shooting was forgotten. It was never again cultivated neither by us nor the West - the appearance of small-size submachineguns rendered it unneeded.

From: Alexei Potapov, "Handgun Shooting Methods: The SMERSh system", FAIR-press, Moscow, 2002

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147670


 
Top