Chicago Gun Ban

Please google "second amendment" and "incorporation."

In a world that makes sense, you are remembering correctly.

In a world the way it is, you aren't even close.

The NRA is currently suing Chicago to overturn their gun ban.

the 2nd is one of the very, very few parts of the constitution that the government claims doesn't apply to the state level.

Any word on when the NRA's lawsuits will make it to the courts?

NRA vs. Chicago

I've been keeping my eye on http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

...but nothing has been updated in a while. So I don't know what the status of the suit is. It could be that a trial or hearing date has not been set because lawyers are still trying to work out a compromise solution...

I have no doubt that Chicago will have to allow guns at least as much as DC does. Heller was just decided less than a year ago, so I'm not at all surprised it is taking a while for states to comply. Really, it's a great way to get more case law on the topic. Everyone knows the constitution applies to the states. That's be determined and rock solid since.. what was it the civil war? Chicago's just buying time. The only way something bad could come from it is if Obama wins, and a couple justices retire and then it gets to the court, but even then they could never backtrack this, just draw a hard line where we're at.

Actually the Second Admendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association are suing the City of Chicago, the NRA just piggybacked it.

Given some of the most restrictive gun laws in the land are here in the
Peoples Socialist Republic of Illinois, and not much national support has been applied here the NRA can be somewhat less popular in Illinois.

Dmack_901 said:

The only way something bad could come from it is if Obama wins, and a couple justices retire and then it gets to the court, but even then they could never backtrack this, just draw a hard line where we're at.

Click to expand...

Well, since one of the Justices that is likely to retire given an Obama win is Stephens, the situation is not quite as bad as it seems. Simply swap one moonbat for another.

For those who know about the lawsuit. Is it just about incorporation or is it attacking the registration scheme?

I think Chicago would be perfect to try to get registration ruled unconstitutional. Look at how the registration scheme was misused by the goverment to ban handguns, the search and seizures done by the State Police, and the only exception was when a politician forgot to register his guns. I think it is a perfect example of what the founding fathers wanted to prevent from happening with the Second. How do you argue it I don't know.

They are attacking the registration by saying that Chicago requires registration to possess a handgun, but refuses to register them.

The Chicago case would also force incorporation. Since the Heller case was in DC (a Federal enclave) the incorporation issue wasn't raised. With Chicago not being a federal entity, a decision in the plantiffs favor would automatically incorporate the 2nd as applying to the states and other levels of government.

Well as clear as it is to you and I that it is undoubtedly our right, others are just as convinced to the contrary that a right to bear arms is tied to service in a militia. Just as we don't understand their logic, they don't understand ours...

A week or two ago I got into a mini argument with a classmate right after my Con Law class about DC v. Heller and he believes that handguns serve absolutely no purpose other than allowing people to commit crimes more easily. He has no problem with people having a rifle or shotgun in their home, but handguns serve 0 purpose... The thought pattern is so insane I couldn't even believe my ears. Usually, even people that are against them at least concede they serve a purpose.

We have a long way to go in this country.

They're challenging the legality of banning handguns, pure and simple. No one would want to see a win on the misuse of a registration scheme, followed by Chicago simply passing a straightforward ban and telling the plaintiffs "Go ahead and sue again; we'll see you in three years."

They're challenging the legality of banning handguns, pure and simple.

Click to expand...

And the city doesn't have a snowball's chance in Fallujah. Only Daley's megalomania and the money of the imbeciles who elect him keeps them from conceding defeat like DC, and a number of Chicago suburbs for that matter.

Daley will be remembered (and hated by anti-gunners) as the man who brought incorporation to the 2nd Amendment.

Well people tend to both overemphesize and ignore the word "militia" in the second amendment.

In early america, citizen's militias did have ties to the government. Certain states had laws how often militias had to assemble to plan and train on what to do in the case of a foreign invasion. At this point, the citizens militias still contained the bulk of the American fighting force. However, after the war of 1812 it was determined that it would be more effective to simply increase the size of the US military and state national guards.

So theoretically, certain laws in requiring firearms education and training could be constitutional under the "militia clause" of the second amendment. However, the US is no longer in the business of training or regulating the few civillian militias that are left.

What I think is just idiotic, is how groups are still trying to argue that the mention of militia in the second amendment is related to a ficticious "collective right." If these groups put half as much effort into using the "militia clause" as a motivator to teach firearms safety in schools, they could introduce practices that are proven to improve public safety. After all, lives have been lost because of people simply not knowing how to safely operate a firearm. Look at all the controversy surrounding magazine-activated safeties.

If public schools would put aside one day of P.E. a year for gun safety day, kids would know be informed of simple things like this.

Are any guns allowed in Chicago if not is there anything that can done about it because If I remember correctly the Constitution applied to every state.

Click to expand...

The City of Chicago permits residents to possess certain rifles and shotguns upon registration. See Section 8-20-040 of the City's Municipal Code, available here: http://www.amlegal.com/library/il/chicago.shtml

As discussed above, the current registration scheme may be affected by pending litigation.

They're challenging the legality of banning handguns, pure and simple. No one would want to see a win on the misuse of a registration scheme, followed by Chicago simply passing a straightforward ban and telling the plaintiffs "Go ahead and sue again; we'll see you in three years."

Click to expand...

They are actually challenging the registration scheme. McDonald, the main plaintiff suing Chicago for those who don't know, has made a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Chicago's registration system violates due process guaranteed by the 14th amendment and further arguing that States must abide by both the 2nd and 14th amendments.

My guess is that incorporation will be determined in a California case currently before the 9th Circuit. It should be decided before the Chicago case goes to trial -- should be good precedent.

$.02

cbrgator, I don't disagree, except that I see that, at least in practical terms, as a challenge to the ban. But bottom line, you're right, so I'm not going to argue with about it.

Yes, you are correct in that it will have those implications. In challenging the registration process, it will force Chicago to either do away with their system, or register all legal weapons in a fair way, including handguns.

Riverdog, what case are you referring too? Got a name?

Nordyke

There's a thread right HERE.

No. 07 – 15763 [DC# CV 99-4389-MJJ]

IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUSSELL ALLEN NORDYKE; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,

vs.

MARY V. KING; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA​

Click to expand...

the 2nd is one of the very, very few parts of the constitution that the government claims doesn't apply to the state level.

Click to expand...

That is just plain false. The only thing parts of the US constitution that apply to the states are the parts incorporated under the 14th amendment.

In fact, the courts have incorporated things against the states that are not even in the Constitution., Abortion is an obvious one, since it is not even remotely mentioned in the constitution at all. But the whole first amendment has been incorporated and any reasonable reading of the first amendment indicates it is solely a prohibition on congress.

OTOH, a very important protection, the grand jury, is required at the federal level, but the courts have never made it a requirement at the state level.

The whole concept of selective incorporation, whereby bits and pieces of constitutional protections and rights are held against the states seems peculiar at first. However, the way our court system works it almost makes sense. Until a case comes to trial, there is nothing for the courts to decide on. The courts just don't up one day and decide that the states have to respect freedom of religion. Someone has to bring a case on point.