Pro2A

The Supreme Court heard this case today. I believe that the court will strike down the laws in Chicago stating that states, cities and localities have to abide by the 2nd Amendment. The argument was that the rest of the bill of rights applies to the states via the 14th Amendment Section 1:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 2nd Amendment was never incorporated to involve the states therefore giving them free reign to pass what laws they see fit up to and including all out bans. That argument is obviously flawed because why would the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments apply to state governments but not the 2nd? The particular issues at stake here (Will potentially be struck down) are the following (From Wiki):

• Prohibit the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban
• Require that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents, which is not always feasible
• Mandate that guns be re-registered on an annual basis, including the payment of a fee
• Render any gun permanently non-registerable if its registration lapses

I believe the ruling will be made in favor of gun owners and many of these registration laws and other "gotcha" games that some anti-gun states and communities play will be struck down. This will level out the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans across the board from rural Montana to urban Chicago.

What say you?

tristanrobin

I hope they don't strike down the laws.

__________________
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Pro2A

Why not? Would you appricate it if your 1st Amendment rights were subject to laws at the whim of the state? I mean we all know criminals don't bother following gun laws anyway... so what do you have against reducing restrictive laws that only affect the law abiding gun owner?

tristanrobin

First of all, I am a gun owner and permit holder. I'm not anti-second amendment.

I believe, in a society as large as ours has grown in the past 250 years, we need to regulate deadly weapons.

Will criminals BREAK the law? Of course. Ergo, they're criminals.

I think the people who break the laws on weapons should be subject to strict punishment guidelines - and unable to have them dealt down.

We need to get FEWER people with unregistered guns on the street - not add more.

Criminals don't want their name on their guns because they commit crimes with them and want to hide from the law. Why don't you want your name associated with your gun?

__________________
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

leighredf

I remember freaking out when I was a kid and when moved from the East Coast. I couldn't believe I was seeing people driving around with gun racks in their trucks.

As a libertarian, you should understand a key problem with any federal law (or the federal striking down of a local or state law): the all-for-one doesn't always fit.

Guns are all over the place in Louisiana. Someone can legally wear a gun strapped to her belt as long as it is not concealed. In Hawaii, you'd be arrested (and viewed as some kind of nut). In NYC, someone with a concealed weapon permit (I assume they offer one) would be on the fringe.

I realize that the constitutional argument is going to be a "one size fits all" result - one way or the other. I'm just pointing out that, as a practical matter, this federal issue, like most of them, doesnt' account much for regional differences.

Both parties do the same thing. Brown won in Massachusetts. The Republicans should have been doing flips, but didn't. Did anyone expect a Massachusetts senate Republican to be the same as one from the Bible Belt? Lieberman got the same treatment. If you don't do exactly what the party's elite wants you to do on every issue, you get hosed.

Pro2A

That is the problem I have with the living document nonsense. The Constitution was written the way it was written for a reason. It is the law of the land, giving everyone equal rights. It is to be interpreted literally in all times. That's what the founders intended.

Again, my issue is the "living document" stuff. I have a beef with people that believe that the Constitution is invalid, different or has new meaning because "times are different" with no regard for the amendment process. Then they use these new meanings to pass unconstitutional laws and restrictions like many of these gun laws in these cities and states. This is also why we end up with cameras on every street corner... so big brother can monitor "criminal" activity without a warrant, or without probable cause. I mean after all there were no criminals in the 18th century The founders certainly couldn't have foreseen to need to monitor them. Nor could they have foreseen why you shouldn't carry a gun in Chicago.

The Constitution dosen't change simply because times do. If it did, then what is the point of the Amendment process? You can't go meddling around with the Constitution just because "Well Chicago has more crime, so we're gonna get rid of guns... never mind that pesky "shall not be infringed" clause in the 2A. I mean afterall times are different now and those founders could have never meant for law abiding gun owners to own firearms in crime ridden cities".

Also on a side note, most states don't have registration to begin with. That is something the media will lead you to believe.

tristanrobin

okay.
I'll backtrack.
It's not the registering of the guns that is paramount (though I still think it's very important as a law-enforcing measure), but, rather the carry permit.

__________________
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

leighredf

With all those yellow states, aren't the pro-gun advocates being hysterical? I think the no grace period policy for Chicago, DC and New York state is not proper. Doesn't seem like there's a big threat that anyone is going to lose their guns any time soon.

Pro2A

I disagree. Gun registration does nothing because criminals don't register them. History has told us that gun registration leads to future confiscation. It seems a little Big Brother-ish that I have to register my property. I'm not breaking laws, so it is of no concern to the government what I own. The issue in Chicago is that they play little games with people and charge exuberant fees to exercise a right.

I'm split on the carry permit. While I agree with the concept, I can see how it fails too. Just for the sake of argument I'll argue the latter... States like New Jersey and Maryland will not issue them to law abiding citizens. They abuse the system. I can agree with requiring carry permits... only if all 50 states have to issue them to law abiding citizens. Criminals in MD and NJ still carry, and the rights of the law abiding are infringed because they are denied the right of self defense. Isn't that what the 2A is all about? The right to BEAR arms?

I can even see the argument of not requiring permits to carry because it is a base right. Vermont and Alaska already do it and there isn't mass bloodshed there. Most states do not require a permit to carry openly, just concealed. Please don't forget it is already illegal for a felon to own or posses a gun. Does requiring a permit of the law abiding somehow keep criminals from carrying?

It's the same reason you'd be hysterical if you couldn't speak freely, or practice a religion of your choice in these places. Just because most of America gets it right does not mean one or two localities can run amok. The Constitution applies everywhere in America... including Chicago.

hot dragon

the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, except for the times it is infringed.

it may be illegal for a felon to get a gun but that doesnt stop them getting guns. this is the issue with the gun cultue, with firearms so present throughout the community. with guns so widely available, so easily obtained by anyone, so poorly monitored, it is no problem for someone to obtain one through unofficial channels. one of the advantages of registration, licencing, etc is that it is harder for them to fall into the hands of those who are not able to get one legitimately. the balck market supply is fed by the legitimate market. in australia the black market for guns is small because guns cannot fall off the radar in the legitimate market.

(admittedly this isnt absolute, there are a few illegal firearms and some crims are armed. but it is significantly less than america. the crime stats bear that out too, there are less homicides here, less suicides, less accidental shootings.)