Gun Ban in Chicago Ruled Unconstitutional

#3
#3
miamicane said:
5-4!!!


wth is wrong with these ppl...it should even be close..
Click to expand...

Absolutely, it truly shows the socialist agenda that these idiots in office have.

Chicago's crime rate has skyrocketed since the ban of handguns in the city but Dems and Libs say that's just a coincidence. Right....
 
#5
#5
The local politicians will still make the citizenry jump through hoops to be able to lawfully own self-protection, and they will probably also limit the kind of handgun that can be had.

Makes me glad to be in Tennessee.
 
#6
#6
J-P said:
The local politicians will still make the citizenry jump through hoops to be able to lawfully own self-protection, and they will probably also limit the kind of handgun that can be had.

Makes me glad to be in Tennessee.
Click to expand...

Probably correct here. Most likely will require some kind of special permit that can only be obtained if you can guess how many marbles are in a jar and then swim the croc infested moat and make it by the Black Knight guarding the entrance to the permit office.

Keep your eyes open for trying to mandate a big insurance policy to own a handgun. I'm amazed this tactic hasn't really been tried yet already.
 
#7
#7
guncontrol1.jpg
 
#8
#8
If gun possession is a "fundamental right" then shouldn't high school students be allowed to bring assault weapons to class?
 
#9
#9
Velo Vol said:
If gun possession is a "fundamental right" then shouldn't high school students be allowed to bring assault weapons to class?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't felons be permitted to vote in light of the right to vote, people be able to scream "fire" in a public theater in the the name of free speech, and others be able to sacrifice humans to the gods in the name of religious freedom?......come on pal, not everything is so black and white.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
Velo Vol said:
If gun possession is a "fundamental right" then shouldn't high school students be allowed to bring assault weapons to class?
Click to expand...

Let's not get ridiculous, crazy liberal. Though, I have been told of the good old days when students would bring their rifles with them to school, keep them in their truck then go hunting when released.

But no one is saying there shouldn't be any sort of regulations. For instance, no one wants criminals to have guns. But there is a big problem when any government (local, state, fed) says that legal, law abiding citizens cannot own one when the Second Amendment clearly says you can.
 
#11
#11
Velo Vol said:
If gun possession is a "fundamental right" then shouldn't high school students be allowed to bring assault weapons to class?
Click to expand...

no, but they should be allowed to go home and enjoy their weapons.

read the phrase in my sig, think about what it means.
 
#12
#12
miamicane said:
5-4!!!


wth is wrong with these ppl...it should even be close..
Click to expand...

I don't understand this. I'm a gun owner and thrilled with the result, but this is not a clear cut issue. The "militia" language muddies things up big time. In fact, a purely textual reading of the law makes it seem like the right to bear arms is not seperable from the militia language.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#13
#13
TruthIsOutThere said:
I don't understand this. I'm a gun owner and thrilled with the result, but this is not a clear cut issue. The "militia" language muddies things up big time. In fact, a purely textual reading of the law makes it seem like the right to bear arms is not seperable from the militia language.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It doesn't muddy things up as much as you seem to think. The militia they referenced were made up of your average male citizen who used whatever weapon he had available, these were weapons by and large the militia member already owned and when leaving the militia he was not required to surrender that weapon. The citizens right to bear that weapon did not become void after leaving the militia and it was never a prerequisite condition for any gun owner to join a militia before being able to enjoy the right to bear arms.
 
#14
#14
TruthIsOutThere said:
I don't understand this. I'm a gun owner and thrilled with the result, but this is not a clear cut issue. The "militia" language muddies things up big time. In fact, a purely textual reading of the law makes it seem like the right to bear arms is not seperable from the militia language.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

not really since it addresses "the right of the people" directly.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson
 
#15
#15
Velo Vol said:
If gun possession is a "fundamental right" then shouldn't high school students be allowed to bring assault weapons to class?
Click to expand...

The law says nothing about possession. It's about ownership, so possession can be regulated, while ownership is thornier.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#16
#16
It looks like with the overturning of the D of C law a couple years ago that Chicago would have never tried this.
 
#17
#17
KB5252 said:
It doesn't muddy things up as much as you seem to think. The militia they referenced were made up of your average male citizen who used whatever weapon he had available, these were weapons by and large the militia member already owned and when leaving the militia he was not required to surrender that weapon. The citizens right to bear that weapon did not become void after leaving the militia and it was never a prerequisite condition for any gun owner to join a militia before being able to enjoy the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

But the language of the second amendment sure seems to make "a well regulated militia" a condition precedent on firearm ownership. Don't believe we've had one of these in a long, long, time. Maybe if a state created a state militia- and you "joined" upon successfully applying for a firearm. Then you could be called upon if invaded by China say.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#18
#18
TruthIsOutThere said:
But the language of the second amendment sure seems to make "a well regulated militia" a condition precedent on firearm ownership. Don't believe we've had one of these in a long, long, time. Maybe if a state created a state militia- and you "joined" upon successfully applying for a firearm. Then you could be called upon if invaded by China say.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
A condition precedent? No it doesn't. The ride to keep and bear arms is as much about our own government as it is invaders.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#19
#19
TruthIsOutThere said:
But the language of the second amendment sure seems to make "a well regulated militia" a condition precedent on firearm ownership. Don't believe we've had one of these in a long, long, time. Maybe if a state created a state militia- and you "joined" upon successfully applying for a firearm. Then you could be called upon if invaded by China say.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

But even then, when militias were around, being in a militia was not mandatory for owning a firearm. Guns were as much a part of every day life for most people as cell phones or lap tops are today.
 
#20
#20
TruthIsOutThere said:
But the language of the second amendment sure seems to make "a well regulated militia" a condition precedent on firearm ownership. Don't believe we've had one of these in a long, long, time. Maybe if a state created a state militia- and you "joined" upon successfully applying for a firearm. Then you could be called upon if invaded by China say.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The keys that should clear this up for you are what follows the militia clause:

...,the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Ponder carefully what the boldened parts say and you can see how the two clauses (the other being the militia part) fit together. The right to have the guns is just that..a right. It says so in remarkably unambiguous language. (ever try to infringe on something that wasn't already there?) An individual right is just that but it's just you. You yourself aren't going to do much against a tyrannical government within or invasion from without. That takes groups of gun owners, aka a militia.

Moreover, the framers of the Constitution were less ambiguous still in commentary on the topic outside the 2A. I can't imagine what would happen if some anti-gun intelligentsia type from today got wormholed into a room with Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and began spouting off about how law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns only by the largesse of the government. That dude's will had better be in order. The quotes are many but here's one I like:

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? ...If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry

Or another favorite:
When seconds count the cops are only minutes away.
Unknown
 
Last edited:
#23
#23
J-P said:
If Obama gets Elena Kagan's nomination to the SCOTUS through Congress, similar cases will go 5-4 the other way! :pinch:
Click to expand...

Not sure about that - she will be replacing Stephens who voted against this ruling. If she were replacing Kennedy then I'd be more concerned.
 
#25
#25
TruthIsOutThere said:
I don't understand this. I'm a gun owner and thrilled with the result, but this is not a clear cut issue. The "militia" language muddies things up big time. In fact, a purely textual reading of the law makes it seem like the right to bear arms is not seperable from the militia language.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...




deathgc.htm


Death by Government





TruthIsOutThere said:
But the language of the second amendment sure seems to make "a well regulated militia" a condition precedent on firearm ownership. Don't believe we've had one of these in a long, long, time. Maybe if a state created a state militia- and you "joined" upon successfully applying for a firearm. Then you could be called upon if invaded by China say.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

If you read it carefully, it is as the supreme court just ruled, an individual right.

The reason 'militia' is inserted is so that it cannot be made illegal for armed men to gather.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top