McDonald vs. City of Chicago

[Eddie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by henktermaat
If anyone wants to know how the anti-@A folks think, read the comments on the CNN article. Very enlightening.

What do you mean? This guy is obviously quite rational :


Quote:
Yep... While all you right-wing ultra-Christian Caucasian Republican racist NRA-supporting G. Dubya-loving psychopath assult rifle and hand-gun lovers moronically wonder why America's crime rate is so high and why your kid just accidentally shot him or herself due to finding your gun in the closet, I'll be in England where gun crime is literally non-existent because (Get ready......epiphany!) there are no hand guns there!!! (Surely your tiny little brains can recognize the correlation there....can't you???) May your pint-up anger and your concealed handgun license get you killed one day...idiots.


This is from the opinion however:

Chicago enacted its handgun ban to protect its residents"from the loss of property and injury or death from firearms." See Chicago, Ill., Journal of Proceedings of theCity Council, p. 10049 (Mar. 19, 1982). The Chicago petitioners and their [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]amici[/FONT][/FONT], however, argue that the handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. Chicago PoliceDepartment statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted1 and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of otherviolent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.2

 

[PatriotPride]

And McDonald's makes people OBESE, but you don't hear me complaining about it! Obesity-related illnesses kill more persons than guns...every year

 

[henktermaat]

And what about cars... I swear. the anti's are idiota

 

[Vasili]

I am very displeased.
This should have been unanimous.

And now that Stevens is stepping down, and Kagan all but certain to get in,
this decision might not have turned out this way next session.

And that should frighten everyone.

 

[downzero]

Are you kidding? There is going to be a line of them now. I believe the 9th Circuit has been sitting on a couple until this case came down. I would expect the losing side to appeal any and all of them to SCOTUS until an understandable framework is established.

And I expect the Supreme Court to refuse to hear all of them.

 

[mrjarrell]

I am very displeased.
This should have been unanimous.

And now that Stevens is stepping down, and Kagan all but certain to get in,
this decision might not have turned out this way next session.

And that should frighten everyone.

Kagan's presence on the bench would have made no difference. Stevens is a liberal judge being replaced with a liberal judge.

 

[INGunGuy]

Looks like I will be carrying thruout Illinois now, especially when I go to Chicago... YEEEEEHAWWWW!!!!

INGunGuy

 

[downzero]

u don't ever see the SC strikng down the MG ban since those born after 86 have no real way of getting on unless they have a TON OF $$?

Absolutely not. The Supreme Court of the United States is never going to declare a constitutional "right" to own a machine gun. That is going to stay in the hands of the legislature no matter what, for better or worse.

Exactly. Let's see...we've seen TWO major ruling in as many years. I'd say momentum has been gathering.

The Supreme Court doesn't take cases because "momentum has been gathering."

I know the Supreme Court gets a lot of press in our society, but it has a very specific function--to settle questions of law.

95% of cases never see trial

Of those that do, very few are ever appealed.

And after they make it through both of those levels, the Supreme Court can take them if they present some substantial question that must be answered by the Court.

Basically, the Supreme Court doesn't take a case unless it's a question that absolutely must be answered.

You're going to see a whole lot of screwed up, improper applications of McDonald v. Chicago before they ever take another case and clarify their position.

If you want examples of this, perhaps the best line of cases to read is the abortion cases. Although they are not a good representative of what the Court actually does, the fact that there are only a few of them (maybe 5 inside of 50 years) illustrates my point.

This case was heard because of a circuit split and because it's an issue of first impression. Obviously the next case can't be the latter, and I'm not sure how improperly it'd have to be applied to create a circuit split, but obviously it'd be rare.

 

[downzero]

Looks like I will be carrying thruout Illinois now, especially when I go to Chicago... YEEEEEHAWWWW!!!!

INGunGuy

I wouldn't suggest that. Carrying a firearm in Illinois is a felony. This case was not about carrying a gun.

 

[INGunGuy]

I wouldn't suggest that. Carrying a firearm in Illinois is a felony. This case was not about carrying a gun.

Well I was just running it for a while, but remember, the SCOTUS just declared unconstitutional Chicago's gun ban. And extended the 2nd Amendment to everyone, notwithstanding state laws.

INGunGuy

 

[Bigum1969]

Well, we also know where the newest member of the court, Sotomayor, stands. She's anti 2A, just as we suspected.

 

[downzero]

Well I was just running it for a while, but remember, the SCOTUS just declared unconstitutional Chicago's gun ban. And extended the 2nd Amendment to everyone, notwithstanding state laws.

INGunGuy

The decision in the case is limited to the holdings: that Otis McDonald and others can register and keep their handguns in their homes for self-defense.

The case says nothing about carrying a gun on your person, which is a felony in Illinois, unchanged by the Court's decision.

 

[jedi]

Well, we also know where the newest member of the court, Sotomayor, stands. She's anti 2A, just as we suspected.

BINGO!

 

[INGunGuy]

The decision in the case is limited to the holdings: that Otis McDonald and others can register and keep their handguns in their homes for self-defense.

The case says nothing about carrying a gun on your person, which is a felony in Illinois, unchanged by the Court's decision.

Like I said, I was just running it, but I would like to find out how far-reaching the SCOTUS decision will be. Why would it not allow Nationwide carry? If the 2nd has been extended to protect an individual right from both the federal and the state governments then why would it be illegal to carry a gun in Illinois since the 2nd is a right?

INGunGuy

 

[Expat]

And I expect the Supreme Court to refuse to hear all of them.

And which Justice are you clerking for given your certainty?

This Court, for whatever reason, has shown a higher degree of interest in this area of the law than any in recent history. So I think it likely they will continue hearing these cases until they are satisfied with the direction of this aspect of the law. That could of course change if any one of the five concurring justices leave the Court.

 

[jbombelli]

I wonder how this will affect the '86 MG ban. If at all.

 

[jedi]

lovely...
(ie the Mayor in question is Chicago Mayor Daely)
---
In an interview with the Tribune, the mayor said his primary goal would be to protect police officers, paramedics and emergency workers from being shot when responding to an incident at a home. He said he also wants to save taxpayers from the financial cost of lawsuits if police shoot someone in the house because the officer felt threatened.
"If the ban is overturned, we will see a lot of common-sense approaches in the city aimed at protecting first responders," Daley said. "We have to have some type of registry. If a first responder goes to an apartment, they need to know if that individual has a gun."

Supreme Court extends gun rights in Chicago case - Chicago Breaking News

 

[mrjarrell]

lovely...
(ie the Mayor in question is Chicago Mayor Daely)
---
In an interview with the Tribune, the mayor said his primary goal would be to protect police officers, paramedics and emergency workers from being shot when responding to an incident at a home. He said he also wants to save taxpayers from the financial cost of lawsuits if police shoot someone in the house because the officer felt threatened.
"If the ban is overturned, we will see a lot of common-sense approaches in the city aimed at protecting first responders," Daley said. "We have to have some type of registry. If a first responder goes to an apartment, they need to know if that individual has a gun."

Supreme Court extends gun rights in Chicago case - Chicago Breaking News

Ahhh...officer safety uber alles. That's right up there with "for the children". All the moron has to do is look at all the other states and he'll see that it's not an issue.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well I was just running it for a while, but remember, the SCOTUS just declared unconstitutional Chicago's gun ban. And extended the 2nd Amendment to everyone, notwithstanding state laws.

INGunGuy

Sorry, IGG, no. This case addressed the prohibition within the city of Chicago on residents there owning a handgun in their homes. It did not address carry of a firearm at all. Essentially, the only difference between this and Heller is that DC is strictly federal land, while everywhere else is covered by state law of one state or another. Chicago claimed that that which applied to DC did not apply to them because they are not federal territory.

You still cannot carry a firearm legally in DC, and IIRC, just to own one in your home you must have a firearms ownership permit that costs about $800.00 when it's all said and done... just the permit, mind you. The safe storage requirements, gun, ammo, etc. are all still costs you must bear. That's not a one-time permit either.

downzero, I understand your rationale, but I believe you to be mistaken. The next case likely to approach the Court and be heard will either be Chicago making onerous restrictions which substantially prevent private ownership of firearms by pricing them out of the reach of the majority of the citizenry or the fact that two states absolutely do not allow their citizens to carry firearms at all, and while Heller and McDonald both addressed keeping, their specific questions did not address bearing, which means to carry. IIUC, bearing would be a case of first impression as well.

I do agree with you that MG ownership will never be addressed by the Court... there's opposition to that from both sides in that the antis and even the Court have specifically (but wrongfully) indicated that since they're not in common use, they're not protected (despite the fact that the reason they're not in common use is the NFA 1934 and the Hughes Amendment from 1986.) AND the current MG owners don't want that to be opened back up as the value of their investments would drop substantially.

I don't agree that the above is right, just that you're probably correct as to the likelihood of it being heard.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jedi]

You still cannot carry a firearm legally in DC, and IIRC, just to own one in your home you must have a firearms ownership permit that costs about $800.00 when it's all said and done... just the permit, mind you. The safe storage requirements, gun, ammo, etc. are all still costs you must bear. That's not a one-time permit either.

Ouch $800! Is there not a current "heller 2" case in the system due to this issue right now? I figured that would eventually get to the SC as well.