Chicago's Handgun Strategy Could Lead to SCOTUS Incorporation,Say Legal Scholars

Status
Not open for further replies.

Solo Flyer

member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
581
Chicago lays out handgun legal strategy

http://www.chitowndailynews.org/Chicago_news/Chicago_lays_out_handgun_legal_strategy,15284

BY JENNIFER SLOSAR
July 25, 2008 | 5:01 PM
The City of Chicago is planning to defend its handgun ban with a highly technical legal argument that some law scholars say isn't likely to fly.
Mara Georges, the city's chief lawyer, appeared before aldermen yesterday pledging to "vigorously" defend Chicago's 1982 handgun prohibition.
The city is currently facing two suits in district court challenging that ban in the aftermath of a June 26 Supreme Court decision that threw out a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.
In that case, the court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment provides a right for individuals to bear arms.
Georges says the city is likely to argue that the court's decision applies only in Washington, a federal territory, and not to the states.
"The opinion does not say that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies to states or municipalities," says Georges.
Some experts say that argument will face tough scrutiny in court.
"If I were making policy recommendations to the City of Chicago, it would be back off this real fast, and just get rid of it before it gets into court," says Harry Wilson, a political science professor at Roanoke College in Virginia, and author of Guns, Gun Control and Elections.
Wilson says if the city followed that path, officials could replace the current comprehensive ban with limited gun restrictions that would pass muster in court.
"There are lots of less extreme restrictions on ownership and possession that would be upheld," he says.
University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone also says the city's argument may run into trouble.
"It's more likely than not that the Court will end up saying that the Second Amendment governs the states," he says.
When the Bill of Rights was first created, the intention was to provide people with rights only against the federal government, Stone says.
Over the years, those protections have been extended to the states under a legal theory known as the doctrine of incorporation.
Georges says the city is on strong legal ground in defending its ban, citing three Supreme Court decisions holding that the Second Amendment is not incorporated.
Stone says there are plausible reasons why the court might not extend Second Amendment rights to states and cities.
It's possible, he says that the court might not find the right to bear arms equal in importance to the right to freedom of religion or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
However, most of the rights found in the first ten amendments have been extended to states and cities.
Georges allows that the same could eventually happen with the right to bear arms.
"I anticipate that at some time this could have an impact on our gun control laws," says Georges. "But that would not be, at least in my legal opinion, for a while."
Meanwhile, she says, the city is prepared to take its case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
"We would like to be the test case to be able to present our argument," she says.
Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, says he expects the city's strategy to fall short.
"The Supreme Court does say it [gun ownership] is an individual right," says Pearson. "Regardless of whether that individual is in an area governed by the federal government or a municipality, it is still an individual right."
 
No, Chicago and every other city in the US needs to fight this tooth and nail. Take it all the way to the supreme court again! That way we can get incorporation taken care of. Hopefullly......
 
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley took the oath of office to uphold, support and defend the US constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, didn`t he? Correct me if I`m wrong. Mr Daley does not agree with and cannot or will not uphold, support and defend the US constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Shouldn`t Mr Daley be IMPEACHED or RESIGN?
The man is unpleasantly stupid and a corrupt influence on Chicago`s law abiding society.
 
No, Chicago and every other city in the US needs to fight this tooth and nail. Take it all the way to the supreme court again! That way we can get incorporation taken care of. Hopefullly......
It's like Hitler declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

If you can't be a genius, the next best thing is to have an idiot for an enemy!
 
It's like Hitler declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor.
Its not like Hitler had a real choice. He had a pact with japan that required it.

Besides, he was probably going to have to do something about the shipments coming from the US to Britain that were all that was keeping Britain alive anyway.
 
Of course, the Chicago City Government believes in miracles. They have been raising the dead for years.

You don't believe me? Just look at the Cook County, Illinois election records!
 
The walking dead, and the braindeads at the Tribune and Sun Times.
So you're saying we need to provide these zombies with the brains they cannot find among the living? :D

Seriously though I appreciate the somewhat ironic outcome between gun control and gun rights. The federal assault weapons ban has led to a buying frenzy of black rifles and magazines that probably never would have happened otherwise. The strictest gun control in the nation led to a supreme court ruling declaring the 2nd amendment to be an individual right and may ensure that assault weapons bans never happen again. What may be the 2nd most strict gun control laws in the nation may well lead to incorporation of the 2nd amendment. Perhaps the anti's are paying for their greed in the best possible way.
 
Its not like Hitler had a real choice. He had a pact with japan that required it.

Warning: Thread-drift...

At the risk of stating the obvious: Hitler wasn't an honorable man. He would not have honored any pact that didn't suit his purposes. He also had a pact with the USSR.

Back to the thread: I think we can all look forward to some interesting cases and decisions. Chicago and DC, et al seem determined to "fight the good fight" all the way to their final defeat. Unfortunately, they will succeed in the short term by delaying full implementation of the Heller ruling, but they will surely lose in the long term. Perhaps I am overly optimisitc - but I believe that will be true regardless of who is elected and who they appoint to the SC (I know, I know...clap if you believe in fairies).
 
He also had a pact with the USSR.

And with Mr.Chamberlain.
I'm with bob.Chicago will have a brief short term gain ,but an ultimate crushing, lasting defeat.
 
Its not like Hitler had a real choice. He had a pact with japan that required it.
I thought he was obligated to declare war on us if we attacked Japan. He was more than willing to ignore such agreements when it suited him, and I think he had some wiggle room to get out of this one easily.

Back on topic...
Chicago is hoping a different SCOTUS hears their case.
 
Georges says the city is on strong legal ground in defending its ban, citing three Supreme Court decisions holding that the Second Amendment is not incorporated.

Please, please, PLEASE let one of those cases be Cruikshank, and the others Presser and maybe Miller v. Texas.

The Cruikshank case (decision handed down in 1876 based on 1873 events) did indeed say that states could violate the 2nd. Presser and Miller v. Texas (both about a decade later) just cite back to Cruikshank with no new scholarship.

Thus Cruikshank is one of the key underpinnings of gun control at the state and local level.

The Heller court was the first to openly admit that the Cruikshank decision was racist as all hell, and also allowed states to violate the FIRST amendment plus voting rights. To say that Cruikshank is a shaky precedent is a major understatement and it's obvious the Heller court was warning lower courts not to rely on it.

Betcha anything the Chicago lawyers are too stupid to see the warnings...
 
Betcha anything the Chicago lawyers are too stupid to see the warnings...
One of the huge scams in Chicago is legal fees. A ton of money goes out that way, and a chunk of it undoubtedly finds its way back to Daley and his cronies.
 
It would be nice to have incorporation settled before the current fragile Supreme Court balance changes again. At 5 to 4, we just barely got Heller.
 
Chicago mucky mucks have a keen insight...

They have seen through that strange notion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to Citizens of the United States an that those rights all ONLY apply to Washington DC. That is the way the founding fathers intended it when they wrote it...:uhoh:
And, they also still believe it is a collective right and their beliefs trump any silly Supreme Court decision...:banghead:

Been to Chicago recently...Don't EVER want to go back!:barf:
 
As far as I'm concerned, as long as Daley and Fenty keep throwing their toys out of the pram there can be nothing be sunshine and rainbows for 2A.

The more case law, the more entrenched the Heller decision becomes, the faster incorporation will occur. It will take time by hey, Rome wasn't built in a day.
 
NRA Man of the Year, 2008: Adrian Fenty

Thanks to his pig-headed refusal to just quietly back down and revise DC's ban to what he has now come up with, after the Appellate Court's ruling, despite pleas from other anti-gun politicians to do so, we now have the 2nd Amendment firmly established as an individual right.

NRA Man of the Year, 2009: Richard Daley Thanks to his pig-headed refusal to just quietly back down and register handguns under multiple odious restrictions, we now have the 2nd Amendment incoroporated as binding on states and municipalities.

NRA Man of the Year, 2010: Adrian Fenty Thanks to his pig-headed refusal to allow Heller to register his .45 Automatic, unquestionably a militia-type weapon, he sets the stage for the Court to rule that under Heller and Miller the people have the right to keep and bear military type weapons, including M-16s and M-4s.

:evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil:
 
(I'm a Cubs fan, allow me this ironic masochism.)

You're more than allowed,Doug.
Cubs history is similar to Dems winning Prez elections,but with worse percentage:
1.10 pennants,last 1945
2.2 World Series wins 1907-1908
3.1906 team wins more games 116,loses fewest 36,.763 all time win percentage,then loses World Series to the hitless wonder(.206 B.A.)White Sox 4 games to 2.
4.Blow 8-0 lead in 7th inning of game 4 in 1929 to A's and lose game 10-8 and series 4-1.
5.Swept in 4 straight by Yanks in '32 and '38 while losing 7 straight World Series.Ruth calls home run shot in '32 to add to humiliation.
6.Curse of the Goat in '45.
7.Curse of Steve Bartman in '03.
Truly The Gang Who Can't Shoot Straight for 100 years.

How do you sleep at night,Doug?
 
Since Chicago is saying the second doesn't apply to the states are one of their arguments doesn't applicability become part of any decision? And if the local court rules its applicable does it still have to go to SCOTUS for incorporation to take place?

Its truly amazing how dumb some of these people are.

633325462873135493.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top