Chicago Gun Case: Enforce the Constitution–All of It
by Jason AdkinsToday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Court will decide whether the City of Chicago can disarm its citizens by forbidding them from owning handguns, or whether gun ownership is a “privilege” of citizenship protected by the U.S. Constitution. In doing so, it will reconsider whether courts should play a more robust role in the protection of the basic liberties of the people.
Such a statement may seem counterintuitive. Of course courts protect rights; it’s their job to interpret the Constitution to do just that.
But the practice of constitutional law has unfortunately long since been about more than the simple application of the plain text. That’s because the Constitution—the point of which is to limit government power—is a rather inconvenient roadblock when government wants to do something without restraints. Courts, in many cases, have abandoned their responsibility to apply the clear commands of the Constitution and have become extremely deferential to legislatures, especially with regard to progressive policy goals the judges themselves often share. It seems crazy that we would let legislatures determine when laws they themselves create violate the Constitution. But that is exactly what has happened. We’ve let the fox guard the henhouse.
Some call this judicial “restraint,” but increasingly, a more accurate term would be judicial abdication. And judicial abdication is every bit as dangerous as judicial activism, and arguably even more so because it allows politicians to disregard whatever constitutional limits they find inconvenient, which leads to unchecked expansion of government power.
A glaring example of judicial abdication is the 1873 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court known as the Slaughter-House Cases—a case that legal scholars from every political persuasion believe was wrongly decided. Slaughter-House involved a government-created butcher monopoly in the City of New Orleans. If butchers wanted to work, they had to pay to use a single government-sanctioned private slaughterhouse. Naturally, those whose rights were being violated by this action sued, arguing the recently adopted Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment protected their right to pursue the occupation of their choice free from illegitimate government regulations.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. In a 5-4 decision that remains controversial to this day, it concluded the Privileges or Immunities Clause—against all evidence—protected only a few basic rights inherent in national citizenship, such as the right to travel across state lines and the right to petition the government. In doing so, it eviscerated a clause of the Constitution meant specifically to protect the liberties of the people—particularly newly freed black slaves and their white supporters—from state and local government infringement.
The 13th Amendment brought a legal end to slavery. But the 14th Amendment was enacted to ensure that the freedom of the former slaves was meaningful. Thus, no government could deny the multitude of “privileges or immunities” inherent in citizenship.
There was a general consensus that the term “privileges or immunities” protected important rights necessary to live a decent and productive life, such as own property, earn an honest living, participate in politics, and own a gun for self-protection. But the term was left open-ended to protect against the many newfangled ways racist governments could deny opportunities to newly free black and their white supporters.
It’s not surprising that the chief legacy of Slaughter-House is Jim Crow, and the century of oppression suffered by blacks at the hands of unjust laws that denied them real opportunity. But that legacy extends to all Americans, especially those who’ve suffered—like the butchers in New Orleans—from unreasonable regulations and licensing schemes that deny them the right to earn an honest living. Ask nearly any small businessperson one of the most difficult challenges they face and you will get a common response: big government regulations—like those that find their roots in Slaughter-House.
Thus, McDonald is more than a gun case. McDonald represents an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to resurrect the Privileges or Immunities Clause and abandon its tainted history of judicial abdication. Once again, the Court could take seriously its vital role of enforcing the Constitution—all of it—against the continued onslaught of government power.
To ensure that we live in a nation characterized by islands of government in a sea of liberty—and not the other way around—it is imperative that the Court take advantage of this all-too-rare opportunity in McDonald to overturn Slaughter-House and restore itself as an engaged and co-equal branch of government when it comes to the protection of our rights.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
190 Comments
I sure hope McDonald prevails.
It will serve notice on alot of folks. All eyes will be on the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see how Sotamayor opines.
Behind this, in the pipeline, there is an interesting gun case coming front and center in Montana. It will turn things on end also.
"From my cold dead hands"
Interesting support article:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag...
The Constitution, you are either for ALL of it or none of it, no more "compromise", no more making end runs "around" it!
The centerpiece of progressivism is dismantling it piece by piece, "progressively"…
Chicago + Constitutionality=oxymoron. If O'Bumble gets his way, this would be a national restriction.
Judge Napolitano was on Fox yesterday and he thinks that McDonald will win by a 5/4 decision with dodomayor writing the minority opinion. Let's hope he gets it right!
gun ownership is a “privilege” of citizenship protected by the U.S. Constitution.
This wording is worriesome.
The constitution gives us rights not privileges.
Priveleges are at the discrimination of the stats, rights are from God.
It is going to be Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens against Mac, and…….
of course,…Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito for Mac, with ……
Kennedy the deciding vote for Mac…….
Hence. OUR side will also be able to have guns in the City of Chicago.
There is a CNN Poll that is worded in a way that if you are no careful you can be tricked.
Read the Question Carefully –
Should the Supreme Court uphold Chicago's 1982 handgun ban?
http://www.cnn.com/JUSTICE/
Poll is at bottom of page.
Results so far:
Should the Supreme Court uphold Chicago's 1982 handgun ban?
Yes 51% 28735
No 49% 27713
Total votes: 56448
The notion that the Second only applies to militias, the first of two inane red-herring conclusions by anti-Second people, seems odd when all the other rights are protected for individuals.
The second Second lie is that militias are the State or National military – which are instruments of government – the very thing meant to be kept at bay by an armed populace.
I remember that statement well. I believe I was
watching C-Span when Charlton Heston made
that speech….
Here's the You-Tube of him saying it……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw
That any justice would rule against what was the plain intent of the Founders is a national disgrace.
Without the Second Amendment the Constitution is nothing but words.
as someone earlier has said, most people get it wrong, when they say the constitution gives us rights. the constitution states that the rights listed were given to us by god, and limits the government from taking them away from us, not the other way around. we have the right of free speach, and to bear arms…, the government is restricted from taking those rights away from us. when played against the healthcare debate, no right that us citizens have cost any money. my right to speach, does not give me a microphone, my right to bear arms, does not hand me the weapon of my choice. so if healthcare is a right, it would also be my right to pay for it myself.
The constitution was not a perfect document. This includes the fact that slavery was permitted as a compromise. It probably couldn't have been completed without that compromise.
But their should be no mistake about the individuals right to keep and bear arms was crystal clear and was not a compromise issue then or now.
Today is the beginning of the end of the progressive era of dominance. While it will be June before some will be forced to admit what takes place today, March 2, 2010 is a profound day. While guns have been used by media to ignore that this case was coming, it's lying by omission will not stop the decision from coming.
Black people across this country should be fired up, but they aren't. They have been misled. This is the reperation they have been seeking and they don;t even realize it is happening. Interestingly, this is happening in spite of a black president, bot because of one – for Obama opposes this 100%.
I look forward to Clarence writing a decision that puts Liberty for ALL people in this country back on the table.
I also look forward to Mayor Daley (Chicago) having to concede that the people of Illinois are no longer his subjects and that he must relent before the inalienable rights recognized in the American Constitution.
Illinois will be forced to make MAJOR changes in it's code and very well could be forced to amend it's own state constitution. "Subject only to the police power" should be stricken from that document- as the Chicago dominated police state is coming to an end.
Rights and Privileges are the same thing. That is exactly what this case is about my friend.
Not a chance of sotomayor writing this. Clarence will write it. Soto may just shock some people though, she might just agree with Clarence.
Sotomayor will come down on the anti-gun side. She believes that the Constitution means what she wants it to mean, when she wants it to mean it. And she certainly does not want power in the hands of ordinary citizens.
I just voted and the results are presently 50/50. 8:55 AM Central time.
Progressives and Liberals are about to find out that inalienable rights are not subject to the will or whim of the majority.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
[...] Read the rest. Posted by Kevin at 8:04 AM Tagged with: Constitution, Second Amendment, US Supreme Court [...]
from my icy rotting mitts
A proper decision on the 14th in the McDonald case will lead to a proper decision on the Tenth.
Liberty is on the March!
All rights are not protected today Big D, especially in terms of state and local governments. It's called the Selective Incorporation Doctrine.
Have to disagree. Driving a car is a privilege that can be taken away or never granted. Rights, as the Declaration of Independence states, are "Endowed by their Creator". The second amendment is just such a right. It can be regulated to some extent, but never taken away from a law abiding citizen.
Um, did you miss DC v. Heller? The 2nd amendment is an individual right, it is decided law. But keep beating that horse.
Yeah Cowboy, it'll be very interesting to see the outcome in Montana, the result may be a cottage industry sprouting up there.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Right of travel. Saying a car transforms a right into something that isn't a right is like saying typing on the internet isn't a free speech right.
In Illinois, there is no way to exercise the right to carry a firearm. No way whatsoever. THis is called "regulation"
I understand it is hard to understand something of this nature, but rights and privileges are the same thing. At issue in this case is this : "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."
Privileges or Immunities = Rights.
No such thing happened. DC v. Heller actually acknowledged that gun registration is allowed!!!!!! But go back to sleep like a good NRA clown.
So how then does Illinois maintain a ban almost identical to D.C?
Folks don't realize that the Bill of Rights, meaning the Constitution itself, doesn't apply to the states on it's own merit. This as a result of SCOTUS decisions so long ago.
Heck Chicago is actually making that very case today before the Supreme Court that it doesn't apply now and should not be applied now or in the future.
McDonald will apply Heller and change a vast amount of jurisprudence in doing so.
The Constitution does not give us rights. It protects our "god-given" rights as human beings. And the term "privilege" is not exactly the same as when the constitution was written. They weren't referring to our drivers licenses when they put that in there. It was a more generalized term that meant things citizens chose to do being the ultimate authority of their lives as Americans.
Good comment DH.
If 2A doesn't apply to individuals then neither does the other 9 ammendments… Free speech will only apply to our gov represnetatives… etc… This si why we need to FIGHT for our rights! And, actively exercise them.
BTW, the Constitution is not "enforced." The Constitution is a limit on what the government can do. The government has no incentive to "enforce" it any more than a prisoner can be trusted to keep himself in jail. When the government exceeds the Constitution (which it did long ago) it is no longer legitimate and is operating lawlessly. It is due to America's apathy that you are suffering the effects of this. Do you expect to convince a lawless organization to abide by your wishes?
BTW, read the Fourteenth Amendment.
Post the quote homeboy. Oh and you do know that the NRA had ZERO to do with Heller, right?
Majority of people fear the government! Why? Because of Liberty reducing actions of our government (among other reasons)! This hearing is CRITICAL in retaining our rights as individuals. CRITICAL for self defense and CRITICAL to protect ourselves from our government!
Privileges AND immunities. A constitutional immunity is a basic right, like immunity from unreasonable search, immunity from prosecution for speaking freely, etc.
I'd argue that the 2nd amendment does two things, hence the confusing wording. It protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, but also enumerates the right of state and local communities to organize police forces and state troopers. Without that notion, the federal government could declare that states law enforcement must be done by federal cops.
People argue it doesn't give citizens the right to bear arms because they don't like guns. What makes us think this kind of dishonest thinking is going to stop because a court rules in the favor of it's citizens?
Sotomeyer will vote with the libs because she's a lib.
I'd argue that the 2nd amendment does two things, hence the confusing wording. It protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, but also enumerates the right of state and local communities to organize police forces and state troopers. Without that notion, the federal government could declare that states law enforcement must be done by federal cops.
People argue it doesn't give citizens the right to bear arms because they don't like guns. What makes us think this kind of dishonest thinking is going to stop because a court rules in the favor of it's citizens?
Sotomeyer will vote with the libs because she's a lib.
License to own a gun
License to travel
License to protest
License to PRAY…………………..
Because "and" didn't apply to black people, or so slavery backers liked to hold, "or" came to pass. The SCOTUS demasculated that "or" in SlaughterHouse. That is about to change.
ANd it is Change I can believe in……even if Obama doesn't.
A good piece but it overlooks the other, uglier side of the coin.
It became increasingly clear, after not too many years had passed, that Slaughterhouse was a wretched decision; but the courts were stuck when it came to applying the Constitutional restraints on government to state governments. (Before the Civil War, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to states. Massachusetts had an Established Church until the 1830's, for example).
Unfortunately, Justice Douglas and the Warren Court found the worst possible answer. In order to apply the plain meaning of Amendment XIV, they didn't take the clean and intellectually correct approach, overturning Slaughterhouse; instead they worked through the back door, avoiding the Privileges and Immunities clause and making illegitimate use of the Due Process clause by inventing the vague and slippery concept of "substantive due process."
Most of the worst activist decisions liberal judges have inflicted on us since have been based on this noxious and unjustifiable concept- the act of judicial ur-activism from which most others have sprung.
I've never held a gun before that didn't shoot water or balls/darts, but laws like this make me want to sign up for safety classes and buy a real one, just to spite liberals. I honestly don't understand how this is even an issue. The Bill of Rights guarantees that owning a gun is legal and lawful in the United States. There are no caveats, that is the law. This ban is unconstitutional and needs to be struck down.
I don't disagree that Soto is hostile to the Second Amendment. However, her confirmation hearing was quite enlightening. The two subjects she was most evasive on were direct 2nd questioning and Stare decisis questioning. Both lines of questioning were directly about this case! Where she comes down on this is a mystery until June.
Though depending on questions she asks, which we will find out soon enough, there might be some hints as to how she will side.
The best way to protect and defend a right is to exercise it.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” ~~ James Madison, in The Federalist Papers #46
“The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” ~~ Samuel Adams
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” ~~ Thomas Jefferson, in the first draft of the Virginia Constitution
It didn't apply because SCOTUS said it didn't. Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore.
This would mean that the founders must have intended to replace one all powerful and limitless government (King) with another (state government). HOGWASH.
Read some of your arguments above and am totally impressed,… wish I was as knowledgeable,.. however,…….
my gut feeling is that the political correctness that has permeated into the Supreme Court will win out,.. but ….
I do hope you are right,….the sick can be healed.
Not hogwash at all. Much as we don't like to think about it, the Bill of Rights was appended at the insistence of several states, especially the vital states of Virginia and New York, because the Constitution wouldn't be ratified unless the states had some guarantees that the Federal government's powers would be restrained vis-a-vis the quasi-sovereign States. That's why they used the locution "CONGRESS shall make no law," and included the 10th Amendment, just to be sure. Barron was an accurate and correct decision based on the pre-Civil War Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment changed all that. Or at least it was supposed to, but for Slaughterhouse. Interestingly, the first wave of judicial activism asserting Federal supremacy over state law came from the Right, not the Left: the Lochner era.
Notice that the Second has no "Congress" within. Think about what the Revolutionary war was all about. Individual Liberty. To say the people made such such sacrifice only to replace that which they fought is senseless. The 14th was to change it, it was to settle it. Again the Court was activist even after that, just as it was in Barron.
The position that the people accepted state violation, but not federal violation, of Creator bestowed rights is nonsensical.
"Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Court will decide whether the City of Chicago can disarm it citizens by forbidding them from owning handguns…"
I lived in Chicago 3 yrs. I had moved there from FL, where I held a CCP. I left my Ruger P93 9mm elsewhere, because, though it WAS NOT "FORBIDDEN" to own a handgun in Chicago, the process for being able to do so was onerous. (Onerous for law-abiding citizens, that is.)
Meanwhile, at any big celebration like 4th of July or New Years' listen past the fireworks and you will hear celebratory gunshots from the South Side. Criminals are celebrating liberal policies keeping citizens largely un-armed while the criminals carry whatever armament they like and can buy out of a car trunk. (And no, it's not because of an imaginary "gun show loophole".)
The law of averages is working against that political correctness today. I agree it has won out for a very long time, but like everything else, there is no such thing as perfection.
We The People are going to win this, let there be no doubt about that. With the Liberty movement happening today, there is NO WAY that 9 robed ones will say " The Bill of Rights doesn't apply". They know full well what kind of trigger that would be today and they no better than to even put their finger on it, much less pull it.
Ashrak,… you have proven to me today that you are damn intelligent when it come to the correct interpretation of the US Constitution,… but I'm afraid…..
you sure sounded a tad naive about…"the Chicago dominated police state"… but do not get me wrong….
Oh how I wish you were right.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Can you imagine the confiscation of guns in Chicago? Can you believe this is an authentic possbility in the USA?
Dictators always disarm the citizens.
"here seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)
No that wasn't to you T. That was to Big D. I know full well what Heller is all about. McDonald will wade into what is allowable and what isn't.
I know. I just wanted to beat him to the punch.
With you all the way
They'd better bring a damned platoon.
Agreed, yet I also find the 5/4 McDonald victory prediction sad. I wish those in the Supreme Court ALL had enough sense for us to see a 9/0 victory.
They would decline such an order.
What slavery backers? The Fourteenth only came along after slavery was no
more.
The response to the SCOTUS decision in this Second Amendment case by Bobby 'Lightnin' Rush, D-Il, sponsor of HR 45, January 19, 2009, will be a hoot.
Haha, yes, Chicago will be so much safer for those citizens who are living in areas dominated by the Vice-Lords, Gangster Disciples and Latin Kings, etc…Yep, the average citizen will now be able to buy their very own AK-47 and have at it with the armed criminal denizens of America's Second City. I mean, just look at how many times the concealed carry laws in Missouri have resulted in less gun-related homicides in St. Louis City and Kansas City. Oh…wait…there hasn't been a reduction. Dangit, obviously, the armed criminals have not yet caught on to the fact that they're supposed to be scared because everyone can carry a gun! Why aren't they following the script?! Please save us, Saint of the Second Amendment, smite those lowly criminals who could give a rat's a$$ about concealed carry, please!
The 14th came about because states continued what amounted to slavery. When one disallows the rights of another, slavery results.
The 14th was as much a part of Reconstruction as the 13th. In only three years time, do you really believe slavery backers weren't who fought the 14th's adoption? C'mon now.
First if they decide correctly the left will go mad with grief, only criminals should be allowed to have weapons in their twisted worldview, hopefully they won't do a "we gave them one no let's take one to be fair" approach from the man in the middle.
Second is the larger problem; how do you get the court systems to start interpreting the constitution based on what it is, a contract between the fed, states, and us citizens with fairly clearly defined roles and boundaries which are violated more and more. There is plenty of evidence as what "it means" by the original federalist papers etc. yet the "living document" ass'hats constantly ignore that to do as they wish.
What kind of a Constitutional amendment could force them to do that? It sounds a bit out there but the time is coming when the people will do the right thing and demand constitutional reformation, when that happens we should be ready with answers so that "This can never happen again" because you know when Obama looses the Senate and Congressional strangle holds he is going to get even nuttier than he already is.
.
If you think predators don't pick out the weak you know nothing about criminal behavior.
If you think that an armed immediate action of a trained citizen is worthless then put up a sign outside your home (or carboard box) and car (or around your neck if you ride the bus)
"I am not armed, I will not resists, Please respect me as a fellow human"
Idiot
The operative clause in the 12nd Amendment is that the "right of the prople to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is in control.
The prefatory clause about "a well regulated Miklitia being necessary to the security of a free State" does not detract from the operative clause.
A prohibition on an entire class of weapons that Americans choose for the purpose of self-defense is unconsitutional.
He said the minority opinion, I HOPE Clarence is not on THAT side (LOL)
As to Soto taking sides for the correct view; that would be smart if she knew it was going to go against her anyway, it would giver her some cover and Obama some ammo, but I dont; think she is that bright quite honestly.
That last I heard about the interstate thing was that it would probably do down, I wish it were otherwise but they would have to overturn a lot of precedent, not impossible but unlikley.
If it did I would have a parade down mainstree though, the ramifications would probably be far reaching and all for the good.
I dont know how you force judges to have an originalist view, but if you coudl it would be a nice amendment to the Consitution. I imagine the left would literally suicide in droves.
My bad. I sure missed that one.
You should do it for more than just spite, it's a skill that is quite useful when you need it, and will probably give you the tools to make sure you never do (awareness, descalation, and if nessecary use of force continuims, which all the good schools walk/talk you through)
I would not just go for the basic course, get a few hundred hours of training up through leathal comabtives, with some descent disarm/retention classes and maybe a little knife thrown in, lots of places do these kinds of programs these days. Do some research though, a lot of "ninja" level craptacular stuff out their as well.
Insights Training is the one I reccomend having been there done that on a number of levels they are the best I have found out of a dozen or so that I have attended or audited, they train military, acronym op's, and civilians at pretty much all levels.
There is the problem, the "living document" creeps on the bench don't care about original intent or contract law, all they care about is how they can bend it to mean what they want dependent on their masters wishes.
It's a problem that needs to be solved because it's getting worse each year, there is no lack of evidence as to intent, which you have quoted from, their is simply a lack of will to abide by the original intent.
From My Cold Dead Hands………..But not until I've run out of ammo fighting back.
Another little update on the Montana suit:
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/fe...
On a rare occassion, you do have moments of clarity.
Funny Dhassy, when you have moments of clarity, they still give you thumbs down. I don't. You make sense at times.
Folks, I know this is going to be unpopular but I have to disagree with Mr. McDonald on this one. If you study the constitution then you know that it's entire purpose was to place limits on what the FEDERAL government could do to you. In effect congress could not take away your right to free speech, bearing arms, etc.
Each state, as a requirement to entrance into the US, had to have their own constitutions. If Illinois (in this case) wanted to ban handguns, they have the right to do so within their own borders, as long as the state constitution does not limit the state's power in the regard.
Another question I would like to ask is if the federal constitution was supposed to reign supreme over all the states, why did the founders make this a requirement to membership in the union? This was put into place by the founders because they saw the federal government as handling external affairs and the states handling affairs inside their own borders. This has sadly been eroded over the last hundred years or so.
What is so sad in this case is that in the constitution of the state of Illinois, there is a right to bear arms but the Illinois lawmakers have ignored that, and the populace has allowed them to do so. This should have been handled in the supreme court of Illinois and not gone any further.
For those who will call me a gun grabber, I am an NRA member and have been for over 20 years. This application of the 2nd amendment to the states is one thing that I differ from my brethren in the NRA. It has caused some friction in dealing with some folks.
Very true. This is a point that most people either ignore or were never taught. Ignorance only helps those who wish to enslave us.
This ban is going down, and it's long overdue. Poor Chicagoans, you know you're in trouble when your 2nd ammendment rights are in greater jepordy than mine living in a metro area of loony-left California lol.
Before we give each other too many high fives thoush, I think conservatives need to also take on some responsibility and make it known to their representatives in government and the NRA that they are very much in favor of keeping weapons out of the hands of felons. Google West Verginia's "Bloomberg Bill" to see a great example of what NOT to do.
Enforce the constitution (all of it) by being pro-choice.
[...] the original post: » Chicago Gun Case: Enforce the Constitution–All of It – Big … Share and [...]
To say the people recognized natural rights, rights that do not come from government, in the Declaration of Independence and then turned 180 degrees away from that and allowed State government to violate them- while at the same time disallowing the federal government from violating them doesn't make sense. It's bogus.
The Bill of Rights was something all agreed to respect, defend and protect. All government was supposed to do so regarding natural rights.
They do not ignore it here in Illinois, they consider the police power to be unlimited. And they exerciseit as such. The Supreme Court of Illinois decides based on SCOTUS – that is why this is a Federal Case. The Second Amendment to the American Constitution doesn't apply here, when the 14th was clearly meant to accomplish exactly that.
Answer me this question please.
Did the folks who waged a war for their freedom in order to declare Independence intend to see that Liberty ceded to an all powerful limitless state government? You will answer YES if what you wrote above is honest. Will you be so bold to do so? We shall see huh?
http://supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument...
Transcript of today's events.
I hope that you are right, and we really have come that far.
Most correct and a very good quote to remember.
I actually gave him an "up" for that one. Hope the sane side of him takes over in his head.
I teach for free. I figure the best protection is education so I've been known to just give people my time so they could learn. One of my friends decided she wanted to learn so we took her to the range.
Now, she's a CCW holder and we can't keep her off the range at all!
Sotomayor will never be for America's freedom and liberty! That's why she was confirmed, stupid!
Why aren't the the neighborhoods in Chile where citizens have set up neighborhood watches as they postion themselves in their streets in lawn chairs not being looted and other neighborhoods are? Those citizens in the neighborhood watch have a rifle or shotgun, but I still can't figure out why their homes aren't being looted while the other neighborhoods without this variable are. Please help Prog Lib Trolls. I need some of your illogic to help explain this.
[...] » Chicago Gun Case: Enforce the Constitution–All of It – Big … [...]
[...] » Chicago Gun Case: Enforce the Constitution–All of It – Big … [...]
I hope that the Supreme Court does it's job; and fear that they won't. I hope they wake up as so many Americans have in the last year. And truly apply the Constitution as written, putting the country back on track.
The constitution lays out rights that no one, the feds or states can take away, and gives some powers to the fed (which is supposed to be restricted to just those powers, which is a joke) and all others that are unenumerated to the states.
The states for instance cannot decide the slavery is legal in NY. So sorry I do study the consitution and I dont follow your reasoning, all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and states cannot remove those rights simply because they dont conceptually like them.
Retard
Not just there but throughout the country. Tennessee already has it, many other "flyover" states introduced similar legislation.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What is it that has -has been caused by it that we have to remedy, meaning States have relied on having no grand juries, States have relied on not having civil trials in certain money cases, they have relied on regulating the use of firearms based on us, the Court, not incorporating the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the way that you identify it. What — in which ways has ordered liberty been badly affected?
MR. GURA: Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.
Snappish!
Hawaii Petitions on their way to the Aloha State
CITIZENS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY CALL FOR TRANSPARENCY IN REGARD TO OBAMA’S RECORDS
by Sharon Rondeau
(Mar. 1, 2010) — Two huge boxes containing The Post & Email’s petition and citizen letters have been sent to 93 Hawaii officials, including every member of the Hawaii House of Representatives and Senate, the Governor and Lt. Governor as well as 14 members of Governor Linda Lingle’s cabinet.One of the boxes weighed 56 pounds, very close to the U.S.P.S. limit of 70 pounds. Return receipts will be posted as soon as they are available.
The Hawaii Petition Campaign was the unique idea of Mr. John Charlton, Founder and Editor of The Post & Email. http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/01/hawaii-pet...
If the ruling makes me a criminal, so be it
start stockpiling
Pry my guns out of my dead cold hands. This is the only thing that keeps me feeling safe against my government who I don't trust. They fought for Gun Rights in the Supreme Court when it came to the District of Columbia, overturning their unconstitutional law and they will do it again today.
A CO2 pellet gun is a good intermediate learning tool, and you can set it up inside the house.
Smear some duct seal putty on a chunk of plywood, 8×8 will do, one pound block, and hang it on the wall. Slap a target to the duct seal, back off about 8' and open fire. There's web sites for CO2 pellet gun enthusiasts. Loads of fun, pretty cheap practice. Good for sight picture and trigger control practice. You need to burn powder to learn how to grip the gun properly.
You can practice every night for about $10 or $15 consumables per month.
Have fun.
Sotomayor, billed as the minority in her nomination, may well surprise a great many regarding Privileges or Immunities. If she doesn't remove herself, which she might as a result of her prior rulings, I thinking 6-3 to 9-0.
Preferably with a deadman!
I beg to disagree, the Constitution gives the federal government limited rights while all others are retained by the states and individuals. The federal government only has those rights which the states and individuals provided to it.
That's some good information, thank you. I appreciate the advice. Their catalog looks amazing. I just may look into it in the near future. My roommate is a CW carrier, so I'll have to sit down and have a long talk with her one of these days.
"…Privileges or Immunities = Rights…"
In this case you're right, but only within the context that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was written. Simply put, that states cannot make laws which violate 'privileges or immunities' of an individual because OF their Constitutional protection.
You had me worried that you were headed to the murky waters of the left, at first. Ya know…"health care is a right". Of course it's a privilege, just as education, employment, etc. are.
Oh, you guys are seriously tempting me to look into it. Out of curiosity, where are you located? I know of several people besides myself who may be interested in taking you up on that.
I've never heard of anybody doing that before. That's such an interesting idea. Thanks for the tip!
No problem.
Stephanie runs womens only stuff there as well, sent my wife through that to start and it helped her gain a lot of confidence before jumping in with the A type personality crowd. She is very skilled but a bit less drill instructor than some of the guys (LOL)
John Holschen I think is doing his own thing now, but if you go for unarmed retention/disarm or othewise try and link up with him as a guest instructor, they are all great but John is just about frigging legendary in my opinion for hand to hand stuff, not just for doing but for teaching.
Near Kansas City. There's a Missouri Conservation range north of Blue Springs that's extremely popular during the warmer months and very well run by the Mo Conservation Dept.
Bear in mind I claim no certifications but experience. I work with one person at a time to teach safe firearm handling and usage. It's amazing how people can go from unsure and nervous to excited and confident once they gain some knowledge.
Once you get comfortable with the basics, it never hurts to take a real hunter education course or even better, go for your concealed carry license in your state.
Of course, I'm a great believer that the holster should be a fashion statement, but it's going to take a while to get THAT idea to be mainstream!
Crosman makes a single shot pump air pistol that incorporates several of the feature I like in training arms. It also doesn't require the use of C02 cylinders. It's been made for a good many years now.
It's a pure single shot pistol, but has a nice reputation for accuracy. Being a single shot also makes it an excellent trainer. READ THE MANUAL!!
Here's a link to MidwayUsa.com's item for it.
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumb...
Much of the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961 as it pertains to firearms and weapons in general is based on that particular part of what is the Illinois "right to keep and bear arms". Subject only to the police power.
In the ILGA, Chicago does dominate. There can be no doubt about that. We are considered to be subjects to be ruled over here, by the police power, as opposed to Citizens with rights to be defended and protected.
That is changing – and that is welcomed change for sure.
Thanks for your kind words Ralph. Remember always, we surround them.
In WWII when the Japanese were asked why they did not invade American soil, they stated that what stopped them was the fact that every American had guns and they feared the American people almost as much as the military…. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING PEOPLE.
Hammer31 you sound like an intelligent man.
I suggest you go back and read or should i say reread the second amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, Shall not be infringed Hammer…
case closed
Even a lawyer should understand.
Damn, who are you and what did you do with Dhass?
Good post…?
I was convicted of a felony when I was eighteen.That was thirty four years ago.To this day,as a resident of Illinois,I cannot possess a firearm of any kind,not even black powder.I am also an avid hunter and the sixty pound draw on my bow gets harder every year.Should I have to pay for my youthful indiscretion til my dying day?I have had no run-ins with the law since that time yet can't even own a shotgun for home protection or hunting.Perhaps keeping the guns out of the hands of felons for a certain amount of time would be more in order.People do grow up to realize the error of their ways sometimes.I have payed my price to society and love this Republic.I wish my rights could be restored.The weird thing is,while I am not allowed to own a gun I am not precluded from running for the highest office in the land.
and so it goes on . the simple act of acknowledgment by the bill of rights to identify these rights is a mistake of history. what was meant is what was said "we recognize these rights to be self evident", it was stated that these were natural rights pre-existing the constitution, that means the rights that were enumerated exist with or without the constitution. in other words given by god to man. there was quite an argument when a bill of rights was first proposed, the founders did not want such a document to be seen as the only rights one would enjoy as a citizen. they were seen more as a restraint of government that these things were foremost in the minds of the citizen, see where that got us. the constitution is written so as anyone that can read will grasp it's meaning, not to be interpreted by some one you have to pay to insure your rights, that's really working out well isn't it!!
With guns we're citizens, without, subjects.
A gun is for deer hunting and
a gun is for shooting should
someone feel the need to harm me.
I grew up listening to men snore at the camp
and I grew up understanding the men in my family would
protect me with their guns as they had in wars.
I have slept with a shotgun anytime I was alone
and still do. I bought another one when they
told us the prisoners from New Orleans were coming
here after Katrina. I will shoot a deer and I will protect
myself. I am an American.
Thanks. I'll look into getting a group together and asking them to come out to Utah for a few classes.
Lol, no kidding. I'm out in Utah, but I do have some friends in Wichita who may be interested. I'll have to talk to them about it and see if that's something they want to look into. Thanks for the advice!
You guys are fantastic. Thanks for all the info! I really think this is something I'm going to start looking into. I appreciate all the advice, guys.
Ha!
New Mexico has open carry, and they're trying to set up CWC cardholders to be able to take their firearms with them into the restaurant, even if alcohol is served, if the permit holder does not drink…
I LOVE my Walther…the ugly little thing is a great conversation piece…
Wait until you hit up your significant other for a gun as a present…
I bought my wife a Mossberg 590, put on a skeletonized multi-position stock and vertical grips, and added ghostring sights and a tritium bead front sight…
NOTHING quiets down a bad guy faster than a shotgun action cycling…and that bayonet on the front adds to the "don't even try it" image…
Isn't there SOME village you belong to that wants its Idiot back…?
We have open carry too, but we're having to do clean-up to pre-empt local regs with the State law. Once that's done the crazy-quilt of local regs will be trashed.
I have a feeling my Blackhawk will draw attention. Guess people will be getting used to it.
Ooohhh…THAT HURT…!
Might as just as well have said, "Justice Sotomayor, you ignorant slut…"
The Obama will not like that, she is part of the Royal Family as he construed it…
A compelling argument asserting the individual's right to bear arms and to treat the statement regarding such individual rights as seperate from any militia qualifier is most prevelant in the period immediately following the union army's victory in the civil war.
It is evident That the Thirty-Ninth Congress invoked the
Second Amendment in allowing violent ex-Confederates
to retain their weapons—even as they were
denied state militia service—conclusively proves that
the Amendment’s framers did not accept a collectivist,
militia-centric right to arms.
In fact, the congress asserted the individuals right to keep and bear arms.
The second ammendment as does the first does not grant rights but protects pre-existing rights. It was and is commonly accepted that a people self empowered by intellect and the means of defense would not be ruled by totalitarian or oligarchical governments.
The clicks from a .357 Blackhawk hammer being drawn back work well too.
I got a project for you. Try looking up the amount of reported "successful" violent crimes in those cities. Is it possible that the "concealed" handguns may play a role in thwarting "successful" violent crimes?
I have a Stainless Security-Six that follows me out the door to the great outdoors…
But around the house, its the Mossberg and No.4 Buck…everyone goes on and on about 00 Buck, but No. 4 patterns real nice at indoor distances…especially with a 3" magnum shell…
And there's eight of them in the Mossy…
Hollow-based wadcutters reversed on 6 grains of W 231 in a .38spl case. Not real accurate over 40 feet, but for home defense…. Yes, buck do stop here. On the floor. Game over.
Oooh…that'll leave a mark…and not much overpenetration…
Have to think over that one…
kbworkman – You are absolutely wrong my friend. The U.S. Constitution "gives" us no such things (these rights) but rather, the U.S. Constitution merely documents for posterity and overtly what was, what is, and what will always be that which is naturally and inalienably ours.
In my humble opinion, that thug will concede nothing. The sphincter will simply tighten up a bit more and retain greater buoyancy.
Health care is a right. It is found in the right to contract.
What is not a right is somehow forcing someone else to pay for the care or the insurance to pay for it.
If you are pro-choice and pro-Constitution, you must also concede that according to the 14th amendment, men must have the right to abdicate all legal and financial responsibility of a child whose mother chooses to bear it.
Roe v Wade ostensibly secures that right for women, but not for men?
I had to thumb you up on that one for clarity and right reason.
thanks Ash
We fear our government because we are wise. The periods of time in history when people were free is extremely tiny. Most of the people who have lived on this planet had to live under the tyranny of one government or another. Because we have had 200 years of freedom we can easily forget that it is not a given, it is always under threat, and we must be vigilant. Guns are one way we stay free from tyranny. We pay a price, but it is a price freedom-loving people are willing to pay.
A single armed society is a Communist society.
TeaPartyNurse, NJ
The Constitution "gives" us nothing. It CONFIRMS our rights under the nation called the United States.
That which is "given" can be taken.
That which is confirmed is ours inherently.
If we give away our rights or trade our rights, we are losers in more ways than one.
Health care is NOT a right. You have the privilege of creating health for yourself by proper diet, but you must purchase your appointments with your doctor and your meds.
Or if you can get someoneelse to do it, I guess you might assume it's your right, depending on whether you are lib or conservative.
Self determination Hazeleyes, ever hear of it?
[...] Big Government: Chicago Gun Case: Enforce the Constitution–All of It Jason Adkins – 3/2/2010 [...]
Sounds good to me.
I'm blocked from Midway on this computer and my home ISP went belly up. What model is that?
The drawback to that is the hollow base will choke on down or synthetic insulation, if the person is wearing a quilted coat or vest. No expansion.
Same problem if you use that for deer, mt goats, or bighorn.
Crosman 1377
One way to fix the gun ban laws in this country is to make the lawyers, judges, and representatives live in high crime districts with no body guards. Live in those neighborhoods, walk those streets, and see how safe you and your families feel when the GARBAGE that you need to protect yourself from DO have guns! Illegally obtained of course. Again fools, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Perhaps if you lived in the real world and started putting the garbage that makes our neighborhoods unsafe in jail where they belong, we wouldn't need to arm and protect ourselves. By the way, stop screwing with our Constitution. It has worked just fine for over 200 years!
Back in tpg, people would laugh at bayonets for self defense. That never made sense to me; consider the tulerman drill – an attacker can close from 21 feet before you can get a hand gun out, right? Well, how many dark places does your home have in it where a burgler can hide? And every one of them is either around a corner or less than 21 feet.
Thnx.
I have no position on abortion as I am male. Not my decision.
However, there is no direct support for abortion in the Constitution. None. Not "Federal law should prevail" nor "state law should prevail" on this subject. Nothing.
On the other hand, the 2ndA lists a specific right.
The felon ban was passed in 1968. I disagree with it and think it should be repealed.
Agreed.
Too bad it will pass.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It does not say "Congress shall make not law…"
Do a three-and-three…
Alternate a slow knockdown type round with a nice fast standard JHP…
Or stick with the Mossberg…
I used to alternate OO with slugs for home defense, but I really don't want something going downrange out of the house…bad enough I have to shoot someone in my home; worse if I have a "million-dollar round" looking for an innocent person downrange…
One of the reasons you gather everyone into the bolt-hole, aim across the heavy bed and frame from a sit or kneel, and wait for the larva to open the door…
Door frames and hallways don't give a bad guy a lot of hiding place…the tac environment works in your favor, and that bayonet gives you space and time…high baddies sometimes think they're bulletproof, but that big old knife at least USUALLY gives them a short pause you can take advantage of…
Amen Brother! I hear you! Thank you for this totally awesome piece of journalism. I'm praying like a madman the SCOTUS will pull through for us folks. Sure as the sky is blue no one else is.
SCOTUS will have to tread very carefully here. While the 2nd Amendment must be upheld, using the 14th Amendment (a favorite of the left) to do so is a dangerous gambit. As Lincoln observed in his "House Divided," creating a precedent whereby federal law always trumps state laws can be just as much a danger to freedom as the reverse. In his case, a cabal of interests were moving to make slavery the law of the land. Enshrinement of just such a decision today would lead to no end of mischief.
"A free people ought to be armed." – George Washington
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." – Thomas Jefferson
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." – James Madison
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." – Richard Henry Lee
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." – Patrick Henry
I wonder what impact the Obama slur during the SOTU will have on any question where this Obamanation is on one side of a Supreme Court case.
Yes they did, however… The founders believed that the closer the government was to the governed (a state government is easier to address than a federal government 2000+ miles away, county government even closer, etc.) the better controlled it would be in regards to the citizen's rights. While this meant that a tyrannical STATE government could do all the things that would make you sick, it is a lot easier to hitch up old bessy (in those days) and travel down to the state house to give your rep a piece of your mind. I regularly go down to my state house, while it is in session, and stick my head into my reps office to say hi. You would be surprised what their response is when face to face.
Now since according to you, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, the state government has decided that the "police power" is all encompassing, then I could see how Illinois came to this conclusion and passed this law. It is incumbent on the people of Illinois to either elect new legislators and governors to right this incredible overstepping of government power or to leave the state and seek a better place to live.
The problem that I can see (and many founders wrote on this subject some 200 years ago in the federalist papers, Virginia ratification debates and diaries/letters), was that a federal government that was large enough to inflict it's will on the citizen of the many states will eventually fall into despotism (as we are seeing today). A state that did that has a greater chance of being either reformed or it's citizens will relocate to a more liberal, using the classical definition of the word (liberal=liberty) state. The loosing state would then, due to reduced tax income, have to change it's ways (California comes to mind with the loss of the rich). Now days, the failing states (yes about half the state's problems are due to federal mandate) cry to big brother (the feds) and big brother bails them out which then gives no motivation for a state to change it's way and reform.
Now while the enforcing of a right, granted by God and enshrined in the Bill Of Rights, on the states is something that I could get behind, I still come back to the "greater federal government is bad" idea. In some way I have a feeling that a future Federal body will use a ruling for McDonald to screw the citizens of the US (I would remind you of the hub-bub over the overturning of the McCain elections bill that we were told would allow foreign companies to influence our elections which is still illegal under a different statute). I have no faith in my federal government and do not trust them any farther than I can spit into a thunderstorm.
I would like to ask you though, if the founders wanted the Federal constitution to be applied to the states, why would they require each state to have "A republican form of government with a written constitution"? If you can answer that one, you will have won me over to your side.
With respect, Hammer31
I knew I would get into trouble for saying this.
The main point I was trying to make is that if you want state's rights (like to stop this abortion of a health care bill) then to be completely logic in your arguments, you have to side with Chicago in this case. That does not make me happy in the least.
That is correct for the second amendment, but have you read the rest of the bill of rights and the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government (Article 1, Section 8)? BTW, "Congress shall make no law…" is part of the first amendment. In the preamble to the Bill Of Rights it states that;
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." They are talking about the FEDERAL government only, not the states.
Also, please remember that back when the Constitution was written a "State" is the same as saying "Nation" today. Each of what we call states today were separate and sovereign nations who gave up only 18 powers to the federal government. Sometimes I wish they had written the Constitution in Latin so that the meanings would not change with time as suggested by I think Ceaser Rodney, then we would not some of the problems that we have today.
In the Virginia ratification debates, one of the delegates of Virginia demanded that the Bill OF Rights be included in the Constitution to prevent a total usurpation of the state's power inside their borders. This was put in place to codify the tenants of what the founders called "Natural Law" and it was a hedge against Federal power grabs (Thank you George Mason of Virginia!). The original document had no Bill Of Rights (ergo the calling of the amendments) because the founders thought that the people of the "several states" would never allow the federal government grtow to the size and power that we see today.
Thank You! That is what I have been trying to say but I keep getting beat up over it. Think what would happen if SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd amendment to the states with "Reasonable Restrictions". Well who says what is reasonable? Will we have to go to the BATFE and have a federal bean counter tell us what is reasonable? Maybe a new federal agency? What happens when Obama, not a friend to the 2nd, asks Cass Sunstein (MAJOR Anti-Gunner wacko) to make the "reasonable restrictions". This could be a lot worse in the end.
You answered your own question friend.. The bit you offer shows that the Constitution itself was always intended to apply to both federal and state governments. That bit shows the Constitution being binding upon the states. Not surprisingly, that bit too has been corrupted by SCOTUS ruling. In a nutshell the court has ruled not to rule on that particular issue calling it a "political" question.
Why would each state need a constitution itself? So all people would "know the rules" up front – which is a core element of the Republican form of government.
You will get no trouble from me for speaking your position, only debate. Please rad my post privileges and rights being different and the consequences of such a position. Your thoughts would be quite welcome in my book.
Try looking at it like this Hammer. State and federal governments have due powers, while people have rights. All have boundaries they each must respect. While none are unlimited, the people's rights are the protected, and it is those governments tasked with protection of those rights. It is their purpose.
[...] » Chicago Gun Case: Enforce the Constitution–All of It – Big … [...]
Sorry, I was unclear. The founders wrote that the constitution was set against the federal government only, not the states. This was brought up in both the Virginia ratification debates and the initial debates when the constitution was written.
Now, since the 14th amendment with it's incorporation language, the constitution is now being placed against the states in general. This was the very thing that (most of) the founders did not want to happen. There was an argument by a group that wanted an overarching government that did control all the laws in the new nation but that was shot down by a majority of the delegates since that is what they had just been victorious against (British government).
Again, I come back to states rights and I still hold that the Constitution should not be incorporated against the states. In the Virginia ratification debates, the delegates amended the constitution as such;
1st . That each State in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Federal Government.
This was then incorporated into the constitution the following year and is known as the enumerated powers clause and the 10th amendment. The 14th was amended to the constitution but it would seem to me that it is also in conflict with some language of the constitution (as far as the incorporation language goes).
I know that someone is going to jump on my previous comment to say that I want slavery back but nothing is further from the truth. My only problem is that some of the language in the 14th has allowed the creeping growth of the federal government to infringe on state's and individual rights. In fact, this is the reason that we have begun this entire debate. 100-150 years ago, the citizens would have laughed themselves silly if SCOTUS had come down and said that the Constitution overrides state's rights (then again the citizens would have probably shot someone saying that they needed to take their guns away for their own safety).
I know I am taking a minority position on this but from my studies of American history every time that the federal government gets more power/influence, even when I want them to do it (2nd amendment), it has always spelled trouble. Not right away but further down the line (Department of the interior act that gave power to the feds to "protect the natural treasures of the US" and now the feds own the majority of the land in Alaska and Utah via fiat with no recourse by the states).
Just be careful of what you wish for, the other side is wishing also and they seem to be damn clever at fiddling with the levers of government to get what they want.
BTW Ashrak, I wish we could meet for a couple of beers. It sounds like we could have some great discussions.
The quote that you are referring to is in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. I believe that it was used in the Articles of Confederation but that language was dropped in the Constitution. Language that, in effect, means the same thing was placed in our current Constitution.
Yes, but due to the Slaughter House decisions, SCOTUS gutted the privileges and immunities clause. In fact, Mr. McDonald's attorney tried to argue the privileges and immunities clause and the justices shut him down in short order. Because "By reaffirming the Privileges and Immunities clause we would reverse 100 years of precedent and we are not prepared to address that effect on law today." (Chief Justice Roberts said that, I think)
OK Ashrak, I probably put my foot in it again so be gentle.
I was contrasting the 2nd A with the others that did say "Congress shall make no law…"
I regard the lack of that restriction as meaning the 2nd A was intended for all levels, right down to townships.
The constitution is the overarching contract between the fed, the states, and the citizens and very Generally it outlines the fact that …
A. The Fed has these limited and enumerated powers
B. The citizens of the US have these "Rights" which cannot be taken away
C. The states can govern as they wish so long as A & B are not violated
So it is in no way illogical to say that Chicago has NO right to do away with the right to bear arms which is "Guaranteed" by the constitution to ALL citizens regardless of where they live. States cannot deny you those rights (violation of B) nor can they print their own money (violation of A)
The arguments about State's rights has everything to do with Federal government going beyond the limited powers granted to them by the constitution and usurping local state governments where they have no business interfering, in the case of a violation of a citizens' rights they have not only the right but the duty to step in and force the state to comply.
Re: shotguns.
I do not agree with the magnum load approach at all. Aguila Ammo of Mexico came up with a shorty shell for the military/police tac squads. (Local hunters and farmers liked the idea and Aguila came out with hunting loads as well.)
http://www.aguilaammo.com
Much, much easier on the ears, and you can get more ammo in the tube as well. Make sure that your shotgun is listed as being compatible with the shorter shells.
When folks say that there’s a distinct difference between rights and privileges, I’m left to wonder if they even contemplate, much less realize, the consequences of that statement being true.
The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”. Privileges or immunities simply must be words referring to the inalienable rights recognized within, but not granted by, this country’s Constitution.
If ‘privileges or immunities’ isn’t a synonymous way to describe inalienable rights, then the Fourteenth Amendment can only have created an alternate class of citizenship absent inalienable rights. This would mean that We the People became, upon it’s implementation, nothing more than subordinate subjects of an omniscient and all powerful master called government. It would mean that the Fourteenth Amendment effectively removed inalienable rights and replaced them with master-allowed privileges.
Even if they don’t realize it, folks who declare a difference between rights and privileges are making the case that not only do governments have no boundaries, but that the Fourteenth Amendment facilitated the enslavement of the population and it’s posterity due to the destruction of individual inalienable rights themselves. They might want to reconsider.
In June, the Supreme Court will tell Mayor Daley, Chicago’s alderman, the Illinois General Assembly and everyone else that blanket bans on owning and carrying firearms are unconstitutional because the Second Amendment, which is already judicially recognized as a set of defined, individual and inalienable rights, applies to all of government.
The McDonald versus Chicago decision will, by overturning the unjust Slaughterhouse cases decision, codify the fact that We the People are immune to being persecuted by unconstitutional criminal code because each of us individually owns the privileges, the rights, the freedoms, the Liberties, recognized within the Constitution
Since you raise the question, there are, in fact, several decisions relating to nature and/or regulation of firearms. It is all well and good to affirm that a local government cannot prevent you from owning a firearm, but who can say that the federal governent will not turn around and limit the ownership of such weapons to certain types of approved military hardware, which would be a ban by other means.
Actually, according to Jefferson, Madison and Franklin's own writings and comments made during ratification, the Constitution is only a contract between the federal government and the states. The rights of the citizen were put in to ensure that the federal government would not be able to infringe.
As I stated earlier, the original document did not have any citizen rights in it since the framers only intended the constitution to lay out the relationship between the states and the federal government,
BTW, has anyone ever felt like you are trying to ski uphill? I feel like that when trying to debate this from a historical side.
That is something I would pay good money to hear from the attorneys in the chambers!
This is why the P or I aspect of this case is so important. As Scalia said in Heller, a right takes out of the hands of legislatures and Judges the ability to decide such things. That has happened because of the Due Process Selective Incorporation process. The Tenth Amendment is there to create a balance with the 14th. That is one reason the 14th came to be as it is. That balance was hindered, if not destroyed, by Slaughter House.
If you are truly concerned about over reaching power, then accept that P or I is the answer to it at both the Sate and federal level.
The Supreme Court can be swayed by the American people, if they choose to stand up for Individual Liberty for all – regardless of what government is being discussed. So it should be if Patriots are to win the day.
"The founders wrote that the constitution was set against the federal government only, not the states"
No, the Supreme court said that. Big Difference. Remember, the Bill of Rights is not separate from the Constitution. Amendments are part of it, not aside from it.
As to your holding, I ask you to square it with the Declaration of Independence. Your position is that state governments are immune to natural rights. I hold that such a position is unjust and totally contrary to the freedom the revolutionary war was fought to attain.
States don't have rights, they have powers. Individuals have rights. I notice in your debate that you refer quite a lot to rights of government, but as for individuals – not so much. Why is that?
If you do not recognize that all governments must submit to individual rights, then you open yourself up to the slavery accusation. Itisn't so much the language of the 14th that has afforded creeping, rather it is the Supreme Court case law which has don so. I offer to you that an already existing vehicle of check and balance is available to resolve that outside the court. The legislature could end it all with an Amendment which is really very simple. Replace privileges or immunities with the words inalienable rights.
I offer that people would have laughed themselves silly if government , state or local, thought it was empowered to ignore inalienable rights. Many of us laugh at that today.
You know hammer, I don't think we are as far apart on this as it might seem. As deep a discussion as this is, some quality discussion over a couple beers would be most beneficial.
I respect the due powers of the state and hold they are not, and never were intended to be, unlimited. I respect the due powers of the federal government as well and agree it also must be held to a clearly limited status. This Patriot expects both to respect it's own set of boundaries called the natural rights of the individual.
Well, Hammer, attempts to remove the barrier that is inherent rights will always be an uphill battle. It is a battle that cannot be won. Thin of it this way, with wisdom in mind.
No law will ever stop people from speaking. No code will ever stop people from praying. No rule will ever stop people from defending themselves with tools of the day. So why see government machination focus on doing those things? It is a waste of time and only serves to create discord and inequality in prosecution. For there would be no way to enforce such legalities equally among the masses.
Individual Freedom and Liberty itself was the number one priority – it is what so much was sacrificed to attain.
Madison was not against inalienable rights, he simply did not believe that they needed to be enumerated, and that listing some would then give license to the state to deny others claiming that they did not exist since they were not enumerated, which is why the 9th was added
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The fact that initially Madison did not think a bill of rights was necessary does not make your case for "States" being able to do as they please, that’s none sense. Madison wrote and introduced them to avoid a second constitutional convention, Jefferson supported them.
Now while this little history jaunt has been interesting it has nothing to do with the current constitution the matter still stands. Do states have the right to deny what is clearly enumerated as a basic right of a citizen of the united sates.
So do they and if so where is your evidence?
[...] Jason Adkins at Big Government explains: But the practice of constitutional law has unfortunately long since been about more than the simple application of the plain text. That’s because the Constitution—the point of which is to limit government power—is a rather inconvenient roadblock when government wants to do something without restraints. [...]
[...] TIMES, BIG GOVERNMENT, CNN, CHICAGO SUN [...]
[...] [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.