Which is better? No gun ban in Chicago or Incorporation Battle?

Which is your prefered outcome

  • Chicago drops gun ban. I fear courts will not incorporate the 2nd which sets up a bad precedent.

    Votes: 6 8.1%

  • Chicago keeps gun ban. I think courts will rule 2nd is incorporated.

    Votes: 64 86.5%

  • Chicago drops gun ban. I don't believe in incorporation and want to avoid issue.

    Votes: 4 5.4%

  • Chicago keeps gun ban. I hope courts will reject incorporation even if it hurts gun rights.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    74
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Happiness Is A Warm Gun

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
320
Location
Chesapeake, Virginia
So Daley might drop Chicago gun ban likely because he thinks there is a substantial chance the courts will rule the 2nd is incorporated and gun ban is unconstitutional in all states.

So it got me thinking what do you think?

Dropping the ban is quick and a nice headline. Another win in a series of wins.

On the other hand keeping the ban and having the courts rule the 2nd is incorporated and thus no government; local, state, or federal can ban a class of weapons is a larger win.

If the 2nd is incorporated I think state AWB could be challenged. There is no proof that EBR are more dangerous. Less crimes are committed with so called "Assault Weapons" than any other class of weapons.

Of course from a strict constitutional perspective and states rights perspective some members believe the 2nd shouldn't be incorporated. Even if that hurts gun rights the larger issue is a check on federal government.
 
One better, gun ban is dropped, and it challanged becuse it requires something (say, it has to be locked or unloaded and unassembled.) and the SCOTUS deems it a violation and incorporate the 2nd.
 
We're all riding a "high" brought on by Heller, so it's natural for us to want to go on to greater and even more glorious victories. They will come but not all of them will be wrapped in fancy paper and delivered by the SCOTUS.

For now, let's let Daley eat a little crow. Bloomberg, Newsom and the mayors of a bunch of other cities are watching carefully to see what they can get away with. Sooner or later, one of them will overstep the bounds set in Heller, and when that happens we'll have an even stronger case for incorporation.
 
If Chicago drops its, we'll no doubt have a chance to go for incorporation somewhere else. That wasn't a choice, but I think it would be a good result.
Click to expand...

That is good point. I didn't think of that.
There are so many localities with bans or extreme regulation that even if they all moved to remove them (unlikely) there wouldn't be enough time before someone files a suit.

Of course the worse the law the better for us.
I would rather see Chicago's gun ban challenged rather than say CA ban on 11+ round mags. I want them both gone. I just think a complete ban on guns (very similar to Heller) is a more clear cut case.
 
This is just my opinion from years of observing his psychosis but even if Daley drops the handgun ban, there will still be many other restrictions on gun ownership left in place that can be challenged probably to the same result of incorporation.

I have to think that as many other restrictions as they think they can get away with will be left intact and will have to be challenged. Daley will try to hold on to every last one of them, kicking and screaming as they drag him away from the court, his fingernails cutting furrows in the marble floor.

I don't know the details but I recall it was either Gottlieb or Gura being interviewed by Tom Gresham and they stated that the San Fransisco lawsuit is probably a faster avenue to incorporation of the 2nd.
 
Looks like I’m gonna be the lone voice of descent here.

My reasons:

1) The SCOTUS is not God. Waiting for these fickle elitists to rule on everything is NOT GOOD for this nation. State and Federal Legislative and Executive branches need to step up and balance out the far over reached power of the court. Having them to do the right thing even if they don’t want to is ALSO a good precedent and much more beneficial than allowing the Almighty Court to trickle down our freedoms.
2) I don’t trust Justice Kennedy. Right now he is not getting invited to the same parties he used to and in the ones he’s going to, he’s getting some cold shoulders. Giving him an ability to flip flop and rehabilitate his image in the eyes of the Beltway Social Club is not good thing. “Well yes, I voted for an individual right in ‘Heller’, BUT you will see that in ‘City of Chicago’, I explained that while it was an individual right for those in DC, it does not incorporate to the States. So your homes in California, New York, and Massachusetts will not be harmed by a peasantry with guns. My hands were tied in DC due to the Constitution’s poor wording, but I’ve fixed the whole issue now. In time, we will move enough opinion to remove weapons from less advanced states like Texas and Virginia… as if anyone really cares about them anyway.”
 
Can some one explain "incorporation" to me? I'm not sure I understand.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights in a strict sense only applies a check against federal government.

Technically speaking the 4th ammendment protects your right against illegal search and seisure from the FEDS but not your state police.

With the 14th amendment
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.
Click to expand...

Basically the 14th ammendment says that BOR is applied against the states. They can no more infringe on the liberty of their citizens then the feds can.

Of course the SCOTUS turned this into a nightmare. A a long string of cases they took a simple premise FED CANT DO = STATE CANT DO and made it about as clear as mud.

Intially SCOTUS ruled that BOR are not incorporated against the states via the 14th (Slaughterhouse). Later they began a doctrine of "selective incorporation" to fix this. Rather than say "SCOTUS was wrong" they selectively found one by one the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc to be incorporated.

What does this mean today?
Since courts have used "selective incorporation" the 2nd is in legal "gray area" until a case specifically brings up the 2nd vs state's rights. It simply hasn't happened yet. It hasn't happened because prior to Heller the courts never recognized an "individual right".

What happens now?
Someone eventually will sue their state,city,county saying the 2nd amendment prevents law xyz. The state,city,county will say the 2nd doesn't apply to them. Eventually it will make it to SCOTUS

IF SCOTUS finds that 2nd is incorporated to the states then bans anywhere are just as unconstitutional as DC.
IF SCOTUS finds the 2nd isn't incorporated then the 2nd only protects you from federal laws. In that case if your state constitution has a "2nd like" amendment you are likely fine. Not all states do though. In such a state (without a change to the state constitution) the state could ban ALL GUN.
 
Are there really places where you don't have to keep your firearm locked and unloaded? I'm asking this seriously. I've spent all of my gun-owning years in Massachusetts :( and the safe storage law requires that all firearms be both locked and unloaded unless they are directly in your control. So you can carry around the house but can't keep an unlocked gun in your nightstand or a shotgun in the closet, for example. I know that MA's laws suck bigtime, but it really strikes me as odd that people are shocked by the "locked and unloaded" requirements. I thought it was like that everywhere.
 
Are there really places where you don't have to keep your firearm locked and unloaded? I'm asking this seriously. I've spent all of my gun-owning years in Massachusetts and the safe storage law requires that all firearms be both locked and unloaded unless they are directly in your control. So you can carry around the house but can't keep an unlocked gun in your nightstand or a shotgun in the closet, for example. I know that MA's laws suck bigtime, but it really strikes me as odd that people are shocked by the "locked and unloaded" requirements. I thought it was like that everywhere.
Click to expand...

Most of the states have no such stupidity in their guns laws.
Even if they did, who'd comply with them? The law is unenforcable, I mean, how are they going to check? Besides, what good is a useless firearm?

Just say NO. Keep your guns loaded and ready.

-T
 
In the vast majority of states there is no locked & unloaded statute.

Personally I keep my weapon loaded and locked in a quick open GunVault. I can open it very quickly even at night. That is my personal CHOICE though. Everyone situation is different. I would never be for any sort of mandated safe storage law.
 
Most of the states have no such stupidity in their guns laws.
Even if they did, who'd comply with them? The law is unenforcable, I mean, how are they going to check? Besides, what good is a useless firearm?

Just say NO. Keep your guns loaded and ready.

-T
Click to expand...
No worries. I would never admit to not being 100% compliant with the safe storage law, especially not on a public internet forum.....because I am 100% compliant.....I swear, honest. But, I can tell you that I am ready and able to defend myself and my wife should the need arise. I honestly thought, however, that most states had the same sort of ridiculous law on the books, in some fashion, and people just followed the law as they saw fit. That's why it really struck me as odd when everyone made such a fuss after the Heller decision when the District revised the law, but maintained the locked and unloaded requirement. My whole state is like that. I know it's stupid and am against it, but I thought it was a typical law found everywhere. Thank you for the information, though. Just makes me more excited to move out of this un-American state in a few years.

Actually, now that I think about it, my usual home defense weapon (Colt 1991 Commander) is detail stripped and soaking in a bath right now, so I guess I really am 100% compliant. Yay for me:rolleyes:.
 
Now that the Court has deemed the Second as an individual right, could there be a strong, logical argument made that it shouldn't be incorporated?

I know, I know. Logic is not always present in the Court, but, in theory, is there a logical legal argument against incorporation at this point?
 
It will be less time then that...

There are so many localities with bans or extreme regulation that even if they all moved to remove them (unlikely) there wouldn't be enough time before someone files a suit.
Click to expand...

The Illinois State Rifle Asociation and the NRA filed suit against Chicago 15 minutes after Heller was announced on June 26th. Several other suburban villages were also sued, some (Morton Grove) have dropped their bans, I assume this will get them dropped from the suit. Mayor Daley has stated his opposition to the ruling and his intention to fight even informed of Morton Groves change of heart. The parties to this suit and their attorney were guest speakers at the July 11th Rally in Chicago and they were applauded as heroes! See more at www.Illinoiscarry.com :cuss:
 
IMHO, the best chance for incorporation is going to rest with a suit filed from someone in a state that has no RKBA in their state constitution, like Kali. Any other suit from a state with an RKBA in their state constitution could easily be turned aside as not requiring fed attention.
 
IMHO, the best chance for incorporation is going to rest with a suit filed from someone in a state that has no RKBA in their state constitution, like Kali.
Click to expand...

Illinois has no RKBA in it's constitution. It plays lip service to the idea, then eliminates RKBA by saying that we have RKBA, but only subject to the police power.

From the Illinois State Constitution:
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
Click to expand...

Jeff
 
Knowing how fickle courts can be, and also realizing the narrow 5-4 win the 2nd got, I think it best if governments just comply with the law on their own without the need, right away, for incorporation. Incorporation would be great, but the risk is too large right now for a defeat, and defeat is about the same odds as a coin toss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top