Chicago handgun ban struck down

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#2
I haven't read the opinion yet but I don't the opinions on it surprising. Those who interpret various clauses of the Constitution very broadly and hold incorporation as law suddenly do not do so when it comes to the right to bear arms. And those who interpret various clauses narrowly do not do so here. It would behoove the SCOTUS members to be more consistent. That said, I agree with the holding and striking down the ban.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#3
I'll be interested to read the opinions. Rush Limbaugh touched on them and they sound promising. :)

I see more then the Chicago gun ban getting stuck down, but registration, permits to own and other such non-sense. It may also make any assault weapon ban unconstitutional.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
#4
According to this article Supreme Court Rules That Gun Rights Apply to Local Laws - NYTimes.com, the SCotUS didn't strike down the Chicago gun ban - they just established the general guidelines, and kicked things back to a lower court.

The ruling is an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, but its short-term practical effect is unclear. As in the Heller decision, the justices left for another day the question of just what kinds of gun control laws can be reconciled with Second Amendment protection.
Indeed, in more than 200 pages of opinions, the court did not even decide the constitutionality of the two gun control laws that were at issue in the case, from Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. The justices returned the case to the lower courts to decide whether those exceptionally strict laws, which effectively banned the private possession of handguns, can be reconciled with the Second Amendment.
Personally, I don't care that much one way or the other about individuals' rights to bear arms. But the 4 votes against this scare me.

The dissenters seemed to be taking issue with whether or not the 2nd amendment right to bear arms still applies today (which is a reasonable question, IMO), but their votes in dissent had NOTHING to do with that. This was all about whether or not states could violate our constitutionally given rights. Maybe next they'll vote that states should be able to abridge our freedoms of speech or religion.

Because as far as I can tell, that would be the precedent - if the bill of rights only protect us from federal laws (except where it specifically states that it applies to state laws), then all of our rights can be taken away.

(This post is a bit awkward to me, since I know very little about the legal system, and I'm criticizing the people who are supposed to be among the most knowledgeable about it... :dunno:)
 
Last edited: