supreme court & hand gun laws V2.0

[65rangoon]

for Rmodel: well last year the heller vs DC case made it illegal for DC to have a hand gun ban. now they are finally taking on a case on whether or not it pertains only to federal laws & regulations. the main emphasis is that its incorporated into the 14th amendment which guards our liberties. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...gun-cases.html The Supreme Court set the stage for a historic ruling on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment by agreeing today to hear a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns. At issue is whether state and local gun-control ordinances can be struck down as violating the "right to keep and bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment. A ruling on the issue, due by next summer, could open the door to legal challenges to various gun control measures in cities and states across the nation. The case also will decide whether the 2nd Amendment protects a broad constitutional right, similar to the 1st Amendment's right to free speech or the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In the past, the Supreme Court had given short shrift to the 2nd Amendment by saying it applied only to national laws and that its aim was to preserve "well-regulated militias." With the court's action today, Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said his organization has a good chance at reversing the city's ban. The rifle association is a party to the McDonald suit. "All the ban does is prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves," Pearson said. "It has no affect on the criminals at all." If anything, not allowing citizens to carry guns puts criminals at an advantage, Pearson said. Chicago's Law Department said it was not surprised by today's development and added: "The city of Chicago remains committed to its handgun ordinance, which was enacted to respond to the problem of gun violence in large urban centers." But Otis McDonald, 76, who is suing the city over its gun ban, says he keeps a 20-gauge shotgun at home to protect himself from gangs that plague his Morgan Park neighborhood. "The people that want to control me, my family, my property, these are the people that I want to protect myself from," McDonald said earlier today. The same children who used to play basketball in McDonald's backyard now threaten his life, he said. "The plaintiffs in this case ... are good people," said David Sigale, a co-attorney on the McDonald lawsuit. "They're law-abiding. They want to protect themselves. They want to protect their homes. They want to protect their families. They're not the crime problem in Chicago. They never have been." The Supreme Court's traditionally narrow view of the 2nd Amendment conflicts with the views of most Americans, according to opinion polls. Last year, the court in a 5-4 decision breathed new life into the amendment by ruling that it protected an individual's right to have a handgun at home for self-defense. The decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller struck down a local ban on handguns. But since the nation's capital is a federal enclave, the court did not reconsider its 19th century rulings that said the 2nd Amendment applied only to federal laws and restrictions. Since then, several gun owners have filed new constitutional challenges in several cities, including Chicago and Oak Park. They lost when judges there said they were bound by the high court's earlier rulings. But the Supreme Court Wednesday said it had voted to hear the appeals from gun owners in Chicago and Oak Park and to decide whether the 2nd Amendment restricts local and state laws as well as national measures. Lawyers for the gun owners argued that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" set out in the 2nd Amendment is "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment and thereby applies to states and localities. Lawyers on both sides of the dispute say the gun-rights case revives a once-fierce debate over how to read the Bill of Rights. Since the 1st Amendment begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting" such matters as an "establishment of religion" or "abridging the freedom of speech," it was understood originally to limit only Congress and the national government. The same was true of the other parts of Bill of Rights. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, and it says a state may not "abridge the privileges and immunities" of citizens nor deprive any person of "liberty . . . without due process of law." In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court decided, in a step-by-process, that such fundamental rights as the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion and the freedom from "unreasonable searches" are part of the "liberty" protected by 14th Amendment. These rulings permit constitutional challenges to state and local laws. The 2nd Amendment was all but ignored by the Court until recently. In their appeal, lawyers for the gun owners say the court should rule either that the right "to keep and bear arms" is a "privilege" of citizenship or is part of the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment. Lawyers for Chicago had urged the court to reject the appeal. They said that easily concealed handguns pose a special danger in cities. "Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns," they said, citing a Justice Department study. The city also said that while nearly all handguns are illegal, residents are permitted to have rifles or shotguns at home for self-defense. It is not clear whether the court will rule squarely on whether the Chicago ordinance is constitutional. Lawyers for the city proposed that if the justices take up the issue, they rule only on whether the ordinance can be challenged under the 2nd Amendment, and then send the dispute back to Chicago for a trial. The court said it will set arguments in the Chicago cases for January or February. The case is McDonald vs. Chicago. should be interesting considering its based out of chicago and this town / state are EXTREMELY anti gun. edit: these are the 4 main points the case is looking to overturn: Banning the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban Requiring that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents, which is not always feasible Mandating that guns be re-registered on an annual basis, including the payment of what amounts to an annual tax on the exercise of Second Amendment rights Rendering any gun permanently non-registerable if its registration lapses

This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!

[SKAR]

Originally Posted by 65rangoon

for Rmodel:


well last year the heller vs DC case made it illegal for DC to have a hand fun ban.

now they are finally taking on a case on whether or not it pertains only to federal laws & regulations.

the main emphasis is that its incorporated into the 14th amendment which guards our liberties.

well that sucks

[cominus]

Originally Posted by SKAR

well that sucks

Maybe for you, the rest of us are more into women. Just saying.

[Hlistr_07RR]

Nice. This should be interesting.

[rmodel65]

[65rangoon]

Originally Posted by Hlistr_07RR

Nice. This should be interesting.

i agree, its a perfect time for it to happen to due to the amount of violence going on. cops cant patroll all the areas and the people living in the areas are calling for the national guard / army troops to be called in to police certain areas.

the last few years parts of the city have gone even more down the tubes. its literally to the point where the news compares our murder rate to the murder rate of iraq and afghanistan lol.

there were something like 155 murders this year or just this summer.

[rmodel65]

yeah more people were murdered in Chicago their gun ban works wonders :rolls eyes:

[cominus]

Originally Posted by rmodel65

yeah more people were murdered in Chicago their gun ban works wonders :rolls eyes:

So then what do you suggest rmodel?

[rmodel65]

arm all people and provide free CCW classes by PD firearm instructors at the range.....

[cominus]

Originally Posted by rmodel65

arm all people and provide free CCW classes by PD firearm instructors at the range.....

So if everybody has a gun does this mean cops get to walk around with high powered weapons?