Chicago to Supreme court .. "we cant hear you"

[SteamWake]

Supreme court be dammned Chicago approves their own gun control law...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhal...070210.article

Apologies I couldent find the original thread.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I can't be completely sure without seeing the full text of the legislation, but I'm about 80% certain that this will not fly, for a number of reasons. The first person who takes the case to court after being convicted of failure to register for more than one day will probably see to that.

[SteamWake]

At the very least it will be interesting to see whom wins this tug of war.

[Molon Labe]

I love it. After McDonald, the first question on the minds of pro-gun lawyers like myself is what law do you target next, and Chicago is making it easy for us. They keep writing bad laws, and we'll keep getting good decisions in Court which will then be precedent to take down unconstitutional laws all over the country.

As long as Chicago is trying to interfere with the right instead of trying to reduce crime, the laws they come up with aren't going to pass. It's only a matter of time before the Court applies Strict Scrutiny to gun laws.

[Buddahaid]

"the violence our young people face" is overwhelmingly not from legally aquired firearms. That point seems to fall on deaf ears.

[Factor]

Do these f##kin democrats even know about the constitution anymore.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Factor

Do these f##kin democrats even know about the constitution anymore.

Rest assured, they are well aware of it, but they see it in a different way than you or I probably do, and the courts occassionally side with them. Many people, not just democrats, see the Constitutution as a "living" document, and I don't mean "living" in the sense that it can be amended, I mean "living" in the sense that it can be interpreted in the context of whatever happens to be going on at the time.

How to put this...... Some people think of the Constitution as law, and others think of it as a set of guidelines. There is Constitutional law, and there is law based upon interpretation of the Constitution. The two can, at times, have remarakably little to do with each other.


@Molon Labe - Will you please be my friend? <puppy-dog eyes> I'm trying to become a criminal defense lawyer and I could really use the perspective of someone who is a real lawyer from time to time, especially once I get my prereqs out of the way.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Factor

Do these f##kin democrats even know about the constitution anymore.

Do you? The Bill of Rights guarantees that the Federal Government will not interfere with the natural rights of citizens. It doesn't interfere with State or local governments at all. That was one of the fears of the Founders, that the Federal Government would gather too much authority over the states.

The relevant part of the 13th Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

prevents the states from denying rights that are guaranteed to all US citizens, but nothing is said about local ordinances. Even in the much fabled Tombstone, AZ during the Earp era they had ordinances banning open carry on the city streets.

It's a good question and an interesting standoff, and I too will be curious to see how it plays out.

But don't say somebody else doesn't understand it until you have made a thorough study yourself.

[gimpy117]

Chicago...with one of the highest youth murder rates in america...but shame on you for trying to make it safer for kids...

from sept 2007-early 2008, 18 out of 20 murdered students in Chicago were killed by guns. They have to do something, they can't allow these kinds of things to happen. If we could save even just one child's life who is just walking to school, I would gladly submit to more stringent gun laws.
Remember, If ones constitutional right (in this case the right to bear arms) is conflicting with another right (the right to life) then one cannot stand. And i'm pretty the right to life trumps the right to bear arms.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Chicago...with one of the highest youth murder rates in america...but shame on you for trying to make it safer for kids...

from sept 2007-early 2008, 18 out of 20 murdered students in Chicago were killed by guns. They have to do something, they can't allow these kinds of things to happen. If we could save even just one child's life who is just walking to school, I would gladly submit to more stringent gun laws.
Remember, If ones constitutional right (in this case the right to bear arms) is conflicting with another right (the right to life) then one cannot stand. And i'm pretty the right to life trumps the right to bear arms.

It isn't as simple as you imagine. There is no simple way to just "do something about it". If there's anything I've learned in my 27 years, it's that state initiatives often have the exact opposite effect from what was intended.

Chicago has a crime problem, that much is certain, and most of it stems from a poverty problem, which is also certain, but simply banning guns isn't going to address the violence problem. Don't take my word for it, just look at DC, or California. Gun control does not equal less violence, just as housing initiatives and poverty initiatives have not yet given Chicago a shortage of good housing or prosperity.

Guns tend to be a whipping boy for other probelms that have not been satisfactorily addressed by politicians, much as poverty itself or whatever hot-button social issue at the moment can be, and we see this all the time. Everything from inflation to job loss to environmental disasters is always blamed on something else.

It's politics, would you expect anything else?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Factor

Do these f##kin democrats even know about the constitution anymore.

Why don't you explain it to us now? Please. Show us how much you know about the constitution and the Supreme Court decision. Please.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

It isn't as simple as you imagine. There is no simple way to just "do something about it". If there's anything I've learned in my 27 years, it's that state initiatives often have the exact opposite effect from what was intended.

Chicago has a crime problem, that much is certain, and most of it stems from a poverty problem, which is also certain, but simply banning guns isn't going to address the violence problem. Don't take my word for it, just look at DC, or California. Gun control does not equal less violence, just as housing initiatives and poverty initiatives have not yet given Chicago a shortage of good housing or prosperity.

Guns tend to be a whipping boy for other probelms that have not been satisfactorily addressed by politicians, much as poverty itself or whatever hot-button social issue at the moment can be, and we see this all the time. Everything from inflation to job loss to environmental disasters is always blamed on something else.

It's politics, would you expect anything else?

yes, poverty is a problem...but when we try to enact social programs to help these people, they're labeled as "handouts" or "socialism" or "wealth redistribution"

[Platapus]

The relevant part of the 13th Amendment
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

psst, 14th amendment. Not 13th.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

yes, poverty is a problem...but when we try to enact social programs to help these people, they're labeled as "handouts" or "socialism" or "wealth redistribution"

Well that's what they are, not to say that's a bad thing, but you're missing the bigger picture. Most initiatives aimed at helping poverty have the exact opposite effect, as they create dependence upon the state.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping people who are poor or disadvantaged or have experienced unfortunate circumstances or whatever. I regularly donate my time and money to Habitat for Humanity, and I've been on, like, forty charity run/walks, much to the chagrin of my lazy calves and shins. I do those things because I feel a sense of social responsibility. Nobody legislated it. I'm just another guy who has some sympathy for those less fortunate than myself. Charity empires are built on that same sentiment.

Where you and I would likely differ in opinion is where the state comes in. I'm sure we'd both agre that the truly disadvantaged and those who have suffered from a severe economic setback need help. I don't entirely disagree with unemployment benefits, either. We're a wealthy nation, and I see no reason why we should not provide them. What I'm worried about is the abuse of such a system, and I think we can both agree that state welfare is prone to abuse. Even most proponents agree that further reform is needed. Personally, I think that if one is on welfare, they should be as accountable as holders of private debt. That policy seems to work well for private industry, so I see no reason why public compensation should be any different. Mind you, I'm not saying they should have to pay it all back, just that they should be accountable for what is spent.

Sadly, that isn't the case. Relief for the poor is exactly what it was designed to be, which is to say that it is not relief for the poor, but rather a mechanism for gathering votes. You may believe that, or you may not, but it is difficult to come to any other conclusion when one looks at the results of state aid towards the disadvantaged. If nothing else, we can all agree that not enough has been done. The question is whether we are willing to buy that rhetoric again or actually do something about it for once. We should have learnerd by now that more funding does not necessarily equal more productivity.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

psst, 14th amendment. Not 13th.

You're right. I was reading both at the same time. It will remain uncorrected because you caught it before I did.