SCOTUS-McDonald

[17Chap]

Here's the latest, I'm sure there will be more to come.

Looks like it was a good move to have Clement and the "due-process" argument involved.

SCOTUSblog Analysis: 2d Amendment extension likely

Jess

 

[dukeboy_318]

good im glad

 

[jdhaines]

I guess that's a little relief after such a long wait. It sounds like Clement didn't screw the pooch like many were afraid of.

 

[Bigum1969]

I actually heard a good story about this on NPR tonight.

 

[indianajoe]

I actually heard a good story about this on NPR tonight.

Bigum, here's your NPR story (with 5-minute audio): Chicago Handgun Ban In Jeopardy At Supreme Court : NPR

Quote from the final paragraph: "By the end of Tuesday's argument, though, the Chicago ban looked like it was in trouble. But at the same time, there appeared to be a majority of justices who want to signal they will support other strong regulations on guns."

 

[Scutter01]

Virtually every State has their own version of the 2A in their State constitution. Even Illinois enumerates it in their Bill of Rights:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

They ignore both their own constitution and the US Constitution. What makes you think they'll listen to the SCOTUS?

 

[CarmelHP]

Virtually every State has their own version of the 2A in their State constitution. Even Illinois enumerates it in their Bill of Rights:


They ignore both their own constitution and the US Constitution. What makes you think they'll listen to the SCOTUS?

Illinois has that troublesome first clause though.

 

[Scutter01]

Illinois has that troublesome first clause though.

Yeah, makes you wonder why they bothered with the second.

 

[antsi]

Illinois has that troublesome first clause though.

Yes, "subject to police power" could mean just about anything.

"You have the right to keep and bear arms, except in cases where the police want to take your guns away from you."

 

[kludge]

Transcript here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

 

[alfahornet]

Virtually every State has their own version of the 2A in their State constitution. Even Illinois enumerates it in their Bill of Rights:


They ignore both their own constitution and the US Constitution. What makes you think they'll listen to the SCOTUS?

Well I don't think that the city of Chicago would willfully violate a SOCUS ruling. They will just come up with most restricitive laws allowed under the ruling that still place a burden on legal owners but at least they will not ban them out right anymore.

And some gun controls are reasonable and necessary in my opinion. I have no problem with felons being prohibited from owning firearms and don't mind the quick background check either when buying one. It's the bans and very restrictive laws are really the ones that are causing headaches.

 

[Indiana_Dave]

Yes, "subject to police power" could mean just about anything.

"You have the right to keep and bear arms, except in cases where the police want to take your guns away from you."

The "police power" is the power of States (the federal government was not supposed to have this power) to regulate the health, welfare, safety and morals in that State. Regulating the insurance industry and prohibiting prostitution are examples of police powers.

Indiana's Constitutional amendment regarding guns is much better than Illinois:

"Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

 

[NateIU10]

This ruling will be narrow, but it's sets precedent as a fundamental right as applied to the states. Following cases must then use strict scrutiny in the evaluation of a law's constitutionality. It's a good thing.

 

[Glock21]

The "Subject only to the police power" line was added in 1970. It's not what the original IL State Constitution said.

 

[ArmyMP]

wanna fix the handgun issue in illinois... take their governor, mayors and city council members to indiana and put them in a house full of expensive stuff in the area of 21st and capital... with no guns and see how it turns out... I bet they start advocating handguns for homes...

 

[Seancass]

Did anything happen in the Supreme Court today or are we just going to re-argue everything that was already said in the thread posted by Scutter?

You'd think it would be easy,but i havn't found much coverage of this(the McDonald case, not ArmyMP's future jail term).

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

So, let me get this straight - the S.Ct. is not following the normal and justifiable route to incorporation, the privileges and immunities clause, because it would give us too many rights, and instead is CLINGING DESPERATELY to the 'due process' clause, because the only option otherwise would be to grant us our Second Amendment right unshackled and unrestrained? Do I have the basic gist of what these ****suckers are doing?

Can we hang these people yet, or shall we give them a fair trial first?
Something is not a right if anyone may, at will, take it away from us by no greater rationale than edict.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So, let me get this straight - the S.Ct. is not following the normal and justifiable route to incorporation, the privileges and immunities clause, because it would give us too many rights, and instead is CLINGING DESPERATELY to the 'due process' clause, because the only option otherwise would be to grant us our Second Amendment right unshackled and unrestrained? Do I have the basic gist of what these ****suckers are doing?

Can we hang these people yet, or shall we give them a fair trial first?
Something is not a right if anyone may, at will, take it away from us by no greater rationale than edict.

FTR, even if they don't base it on due process, we still will not have the unshackled, unrestrained 2A... There is simply no way that this court, even Scalia, will overturn NFA 1934.

With that said, I've not watched these issues as long as some have, but from what I've seen, courts, and most especially SCOTUS, is very VERY loath to overturn precedent. Stare decisis is the term they use (Latin for "it has already been decided") They want one HELL of a good reason to do that, in part because, as in the Slaughter-House cases' situation Justice Scalia noted that 140 years of precedent would then be overturned. Based on what I've read, I don't expect them to take the "privileges or immunities" clause on. In my non-professional opinion, Gura didn't make the case for that, and perhaps in part, that's because Clement took up some of his time. That said, however, I didn't read his amicus brief, so I don't know if he made a better case there. If they DO go with PorI, it will be absolutely effing HUGE, but I don't see them rocking that boat. I'm not getting my hopes up only to be let down... but if I expect a little and get a lot, I will be thrilled.

We shall see, and time will tell.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Seancass]

So.. yeah.. I'll just keep posting this other thread, where all this has already been covered so maybe we can discuss the current, non-dreamy, non-hypothetical, actually important Supreme Court case.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...h_im_thinking_about_fighting_authority-6.html

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thread split. Conversation dealing with carrying without a license may be found here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...out_a_license_split_from_scotus-mcdonald.html
until that thread gets closed.