DC gun ban struck downFollow

RACK the Supreme Court! Personally, I'd issue every child born in the US with a S&W .40 cal wheel gun just to keep the Messicans away and clear out the detrious of society before they are old enough to procreate.

Totem

Kill what? No one has introduced legislature regarding it into the current Congress.

Jesus, I hope so.

I know it's been a while, but man, get it together.

Nexa

You sound as if you know from experience? Anything you need to get off your chest?

Have I shouted at your **** while you had it dressed up in a tiny wig and lipstick? I'd imagine I'd remember that sort of thing, but it's hard to say. Did I have a magnifying glass?

No. Wait, it seems unlikely. I'd have to have somehow ended up in Tennessee without killing myself first. Now that I really think about it, highly implausible.

Have any of you people ever BEEN to DC? and I don't mean The Smithsonian.


This obviously means legal owners.

The only people that this law is going to affect is the wealthy white people who live there and the criminals who try to rob them. Let us not go on about home defense tactical statistics regarding the chances of your gun being used against you in your home.. if you don't know how to use one then indeed you should not be having one; and if you are a fool enough to accidentally fire it... then once again... you're an idiot regardless and would probably be prone to injuring yourself and others in plenty of other ways whether you have a gun or not.

I don't know the details of Chicago's ban... but I think they only got away with this in DC because it's not a state and the ban posed no threat to the mainstream districts of the country as it wasn't seen as a precedent.. it's special.
Indeed I believe that guns are an entirely unnecessary evil and if all guns(or metal) would disappear from the planet tomorrow, including the 3 that I own (soon to be 4[AK47 muthafackaz]) I would not be upset; but the entire thing I think is about the effectiveness of other programs and law enforcement in a society. Gun violence is not a base crime. I understand doing one's part in trying to achieve a society without firearms or even better without the need/want for firearms.. but this isn't the UK. The demographics are in no way comparable.

The laws mean nothing anyway. In New Orleans they went door to door to registered gun owners and took their **** by force. You who are all for gun bans have way too much faith in society and the system. Registered gun owners are the last people who are going to go out an commit a crime with the guns... and if they go and legally purchase a gun in order to commit a crime.. then there is some other problem that should have been dealt with.. How about making it illegal to own a computer without a license? Same principle right? Not just the people who use them for theft but those who are too retarded to use them and click on every thing that pops up thus making their computers into tools for the criminals. As far as people breaking into a house and stealing a gun... yeah well I'm sure that is a cornerstone of the underground gun market right there.. not the crates that are imported by the real criminals that trickle down into the streets..
and for the record.. I don't own guns for self defense or some survivalist mentality.. simply because I can and they're fucking awesome.

Honestly, I think this whole bit (which I've heard repeated a staggering number of times in the last two days) is just spin. There's no rational reason to assume that a constitutional decision in DC wouldn't also apply to all the states.

The core ruling in the case is the US citizens do indeed have the right to own firearms and must be allowed to do so to some degree. Also, (and arguably the most significant result of this ruling) is that there's no need for the person to be "in a well regulated militia" to have that right. An absolute ban on handguns was ruled to be a violation of that right in this case. Whether that's imposed by the DC itself or a state government really doesn't matter at all. State (or cities within a state) laws cannot violate the constitution any more then DC laws can.


Constitutionality goes from the bottom up, each level outweighing the other. That's why we start cases at the local level, then move up to the state, then the federal level, finally arriving at the US supreme court (if they get that far). A case may start higher up in that ordering, but that doesn't affect the scope of any ruling. The highest court at each level (which is where applicable constitutional decisions are made) is above the one's before it, and below any after it. The US supreme court is the highest court in the country. There's no rationale to argue that since this was a DC case, that the courts ruling doesn't also affect laws in Illinois.


It's desperate spin at best. I don't put much weight in it, but it is amusing how strongly they're trying to convince everyone that it doesn't affect those other bans...

That's why we start cases at the local level, then move up to the state,

Yeah, Capitan. There's no local or state level here. That's the ******* point.

I know you're probably not aware of this, but DC's not actually a city in Maryland.

No. The point is that it's irrelevant where the case originated. Each level of court has a "scope" to which their decisions apply. A state supreme court's rulings apply across a statewide scope. The US supreme court's decisions apply across the entire US.

Where the case started doesn't matter. It's the highest level of court at which the ruling was made that does. If this were a district court ruling, you'd be correct that the decision would only affect the district, in exactly the way a municipal court's rulings only affect that municipality, and a state courts rulings only affect that state.

The US supreme court's rulings affect all the laws everywhere it has jurisdiction. Which is *everywhere* inside the US. It's pure wishful thinking to try to believe that this ruling somehow doesn't really affect similar handgun bans in places like Chicago. It exactly does.

Edited, Jun 27th 2008 8:32pm by gbaji

Er? There isn't in Illinois either Smash.

The concept of states rights applies to federal laws and rulings but *not* to the constitution or rulings on the constitution itself. The whole concept is derived from the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Federal powers only restrict the actions of the states if they are derived specifically from the constitution. So if the US congress tomorrow decides to make the mandatory minimum drinking age 35, the states could safely ignore that restriction in their own state laws. The federal government has no constitutional power to set drinking age, so the states don't have to pay any attention to it. That age might apply in territories, or on military bases, and perhaps in the District, but *not* in any state.


The concept of states rights simply does not apply to a constitutional ruling by the US supreme court. It's frankly nonsensical to even suggest that it would...



Sure. I'm quite certain that the legality of chewing gum on the subway in NYC is not affected by this ruling. But similar handgun bans like the one in Chicago most certainly *are*. Absolutely. Completely. Anyone suggesting otherwise is engaging in wishful thinking.

Edited, Jun 27th 2008 9:17pm by gbaji

My brief glance at the Chicago laws leads me to believe that (like DC) that it's not technically a "ban" but rather a work around... by ruling that you need a permit to legally own a gun however stopped granting permits to anyone.... it's similar to the old 1930s machine-gun stamp law.. saying that you can own one as long as you have the stamp.. but good luck finding a stamp.

tricksy

Ugh, the "undue burden" ruling, which basically said that states could make laws limiting abortion so long as they did not place an undue burden on a woman's ability to have one. It accomplished--as it was fully intended to do--the opposite of what you're suggesting here, making it easier for states to restrict access to abortion because, even though it's a restriction, it's still not an "undue burden."

So, for instance, if abortion is legal in the state, but restrictions are so narrow that no facility can meet the requirements to be allowed to provide abortions, then, well, that's okay. Such is basically the case in Mississippi right now (I highly recommend you watch the Frontline program that this link is a synopsis for), which as of a couple years ago had only ONE abortion clinic which was looking at being forced to close its doors because new legislation was going to make it necessary for all facilities that provide abortions meet the guidelines laid out for all other medical ambulatory care centers with regards to things like the width of corridors and whatnot.

So if SCOTUS were to pass a similar law, Chicago's "ban" on handguns might actually have a chance of standing. Not that it would.

Edited, Jun 28th 2008 9:19am by Ambrya

Meh. Honestly I think the 2nd amendment is poorly written and as good an example as any to point out when people lionize the Framers. It's a shitty amendment used by many to justify the gun culture in our country.

Personally, I think the original intent was to allow for private citizens to own firearms for the purpose of defending themselves against a potentially tyrannical government. I think we've gotten far, far away from that intent. On the other hand, given the fact that handguns seem to be the firearm of choice for a great many people, I'm not sure they should be abolished as a group. I think there's a fair and valid argument to be made either way with regards to the Second Amendment.

Saying that the other four Justices ruled "incorrectly" is silly. The Second Amendment is probably the most poorly written and open to interpretation amendment of the bunch. I wasn't surprised that the ruling went the way that it did but I wouldn't have been at all disatisfied had it gone the other way nor felt that it subverted the Constitution.

A "more clear violation"? Ain't nothing about the Second Amendment that's clear.