Supreme Court to hear gun control issue.

I just saw this on CNN and thought people here would be interested. (Not sure if this is the right place for this)

Supreme Court to address limits of gun control

The court will ultimately decide two fundamental questions: Do strict state and local gun control laws violate the constitutional "right to keep and bear arms"? And can an individual's right to own a weapon extend beyond federal jurisdiction?

The specific case deals with Chicago's longstanding ban on handguns. Latiker supports the law; McDonald is fighting it in court.

What do you guys think? I'm not much of a fan of CNN news but I do take interest in the issue of gun control.

Edit: It's not so much the killing in Chicago that I am showing this for, it's mostly because of what it could mean to the rest of the United States. I hope they think before they decide.






[edit on 3/2/2010 by Everwatcher33]

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right each citizen has. I don't think that state or federal law should trump that constitutional right. The one exception I do endorse is that convicted felons should not have the right to keep and bear arms.

To me it's simple. If you use a gun in the commencement of a crime you are locked away for 20 years hard labor without the possibility of parole. If after that you are caught in possession of any kind of weapon, you are then put away for life, 23 hours a day in your cell, no possibility of parole.

Now I also am a proponent of the measure that all firearms should be registered. Any person that is serious about gun safety and gun possession would not be against that. I don't think that a violation of that law should be more than a misdemeanor, with a small fine. But having a list of registered firearms is not in my opinion an infringement of the second amendment, and it would go a long way to deter gun violence.

Punish the criminals not the citizens. That is my view about it anyway.

reply to post by Everwatcher33


I am really sorry about all those kids' being killed in chicago.The gun
ban would only affect the law abiding citizens.The ones doing the shootings
would still be armed!

reply to post by whatukno



I'm pretty much in agreement with you. There is no reason that a normal citizen cannot own a gun. People who have used guns for criminal reasons shouldn't be allowed to own them. I do not think self defense is a crime either.

It strikes me as odd that the Chicago ban has gone on this long and hasn't been addressed until now. You would think that the case would have been brought forth sooner.

reply to post by mamabeth



I am sorry to see they are being killed as well, but that happens in every city. No matter how much gun control you put out there it will not end killings in cities.

Chicago, like DC, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country along with some of the highest violent crime rates.

I wont be one of those guys who come running out claiming lax gun laws reduce crime rates and cite a bunch of examples because that will just result in a lot of arguing.

What I will come running out and claim, however, is that apparently strict gun laws dont do squat to prevent violent crime.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


You would think that if we can see it so would law makers.

The elderly man that this case is centered around took measures to protect himself against the surge in violence in his Chicago neighborhood and violence against him. A neighborhood incidentally that is not too far from Obama's Chicagoland digs.

This is fundamental right to protect yourself against violence. I strongly feel that the SCOTUS will find in favor of this man and will overturn the laws that protect the ever growing criminal element in Chicago.

McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521).

[edit on 2-3-2010 by jibeho]

reply to post by jibeho


I haven't heard much of the SCOTUS lately so I am not sure how they are voting these days. I hope you are right.

reply to post by jibeho


Agreed. On the heels of their decision in DC v. Heller in 2008, I can't imagine that this won't go in favor of the private citizen. The biggest question in my mind is which way Sotomayor votes on the issue, though I suspect she'll rule against and we'll have another 5-4 decision. More evidence that elections matter, I suppose, especially with regard to the court system and new appointments.

The Constitution seems unequivocal.

But I will caution the optimistic; this is the same SCOTUS that has already displayed some activist characteristics, and they may behave in manner more consistent with political ideology than Constitutional integrity.

I wish I were wrong, I hope I am wrong.

Originally posted by Maxmars
The Constitution seems unequivocal.

But I will caution the optimistic; this is the same SCOTUS that has already displayed some activist characteristics, and they may behave in manner more consistent with political ideology than Constitutional integrity.

I wish I were wrong, I hope I am wrong.

If you don't mind me asking which decisions are you referring to? Just curious, I like reading.

Different source, different thread, same topic

But yes, it is very clear that the founding fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right.

Some may argue that it only provides for the militia to be armed, but Article 1, Section 8 already has that covered.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Makes it pretty cut and dry, that the Second was a protection meant for the individual, like the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The only way that the Second is up to the States is if the Second is subservient to the Tenth and the Ninth is completely ignored. Which makes no legal nor moral sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by whatukno

Now I also am a proponent of the measure that all firearms should be registered. Any person that is serious about gun safety and gun possession would not be against that. I don't think that a violation of that law should be more than a misdemeanor, with a small fine. But having a list of registered firearms is not in my opinion an infringement of the second amendment, and it would go a long way to deter gun violence.

I was reading your post in total agreement until I hit this paragraph. It is my contention that OUR RIGHTS are not anything that should be REGISTERED, TAXED or otherwise tampered with. Perhaps a minor point to some but I don't believe it's any of the governments business what guns or how many I own. It was nice to agree with you WhatUknow for a change.

This will be a landmark case for the SCOTUS and perhaps one of the most important decisions ever rendered. The fourteenth amendment was passed after the civil war to specifically enumerate the rights held by newly-freed slaves and trade unionists in the south from attacks by the ku klux klan and their supporters. The SCOTUS has in the last 30 years consistently attacked our rights by judicial activism.
There is a very good chance that the City of Chicago's unconstitutional gun laws will be struck down. If not, it will show a supreme contempt for the rights of the American citizen.
I digress, I feel confident that 2nd amendment supporters will be victorious in this case.

reply to post by Ahabstar


Thanks for the info I'll read it, I did a quick search for any like threads this morning but didn't find anything. My apologies for posting something that was already posted.

In case anyone was interested it's being "live blogged".

www.scotusblog.com...

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Thanks!

reply to post by Everwatcher33


Different forums so it is all good...unless a Mod decides otherwise.

Originally posted by Everwatcher33

Originally posted by Maxmars
The Constitution seems unequivocal.

But I will caution the optimistic; this is the same SCOTUS that has already displayed some activist characteristics, and they may behave in manner more consistent with political ideology than Constitutional integrity.

I wish I were wrong, I hope I am wrong.

If you don't mind me asking which decisions are you referring to? Just curious, I like reading.

There are lot's of examples... the most recent being the issue of Political campaign finance by corporate entities. Mind you, it's not the ruling itself to which I refer, but the manner of it's rise, and its disposition; essentially undoing two decades of campaign finance reform. Some consider this an 'activist' effort, and the SCOTUS is not supposed to be involved in that matter unless it relates to a true Constitutional issue.

Then there was the whole Bush v. Gore recount issue. which was moot anyway since the electoral college does whatever the party wants. The SCOTUS cut that ordeal short, so abruptly that it calls into question whether their urgency had anything to do with something other than the Constitution.

Checks and balances were not meant to be subject to the same overriding influences.... but they are...

[edit on 2-3-2010 by Maxmars]

Outcome:

Analysis

The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.

When the Justices cast their first vote after starting later this week to discuss where to go from here, it appeared that the focus of debate will be how extensive a “right to keep and bear arms” should be spelled out: would it be only some “core right” to have a gun for personal safety, or would it include every variation of that right that could emerge in the future as courts decide specific cases? The liberal wing of the Court appeared to be making a determined effort to hold the expanded Amendment in check, but even the conservatives open to applying the Second Amendment to states, counties and cities seemed ready to concede some — but perhaps fewer — limitations.

Feldman made no headway with an argument that state and local political processes should be left to develop gun control policy, unimpeded by the Second Amendment or its equivalent.

Source

I knew this would rear its ugly head:

And Scalia reminded Feldman that the Court in the Heller decision had left room for some regulation of guns even though the Second Amendment now embraced a personal right to have a gun.