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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its not like Hitler had a real choice. He had a pact with japan that required it.
Nope, only if Japan were ATTACKED... and as others have pointed out, his word was as good as a Confederate war bond.

What Daley is going to do is get the 2nd Amendment incorporated, and probably in the broadest sort of terms, and even Obama can't stop that, since it's likely leftwing justices who'll need to be replaced first.

The City of Chicago has bar NONE, the most incompetent legal department of any big city. I wouldn't at all be surprised if Daley ends up getting shall issue concealed carry enshrined in writing. His problem is that like Saddam Hussein, he simply can no longer envision other people not being bullied by him, and actually not caring what he thinks. And the low IQ flunkies with whom he's surrounded himself are too whipped to tell him.

What Fenty started, Daley will finish. Anti-gunners will be cursing their names for all eternity. I'll just snicker a little.
 
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?

If it is not appealed it only applies to the case before the court and is not binding in any other case. If it is appealed the appeals court ruling is binding on all other courts in the circuit including any subsequent cases that are appealed in that circuit. If it is appealed to SCOTUS after the appeals court ruling and they accept it the SCOTUS ruling is binding everywhere in US territory.

However the trial court rules on incorporation it will be appealed. The only open question is will SCOTUS accept the case or let the appeals court ruling stand?
 
A more common theme and thread in this is the lack of respect for ALL legislators of the rights of thir constituency.

When will we all say enough is enough? In Los Angeles and california in general we have the citizens now here to support gov. rather than gov. there to support us.

As was stated earlier, the court can say whatever they want if laws aren't enforced the're uesless.

Chicago will certianly only help our cause if they continue to tow the same line. But Who will enforce it?

At some point we should all just stop paying taxes. Leave them with NO money. Only when we stand United will change come about. Unfortunately the senator was right, "We're a country of whiners."
 
My God everyone, I'm so happy with these cities (DC and Chicago) going against Heller that I can't get rid of this huge smile on my face. :D

How anyone can read Heller and think it will only apply to DC is beyond me.

The anti-gunners are on the run and I love it!!

Let them reap the whirlwind. It's about time.

This is an absolute dream of a lifetime for me!
 
Let them reap the whirlwind. It's about time.
They said they wanted "reasonable gun control" and now that they've GOTTEN it, see them squeal!

If you're a vampire, don't order the scotch and holy water, you might GET it!!!
 
The 9th Circuit will address this issue before Chicago even gets out of the starting gate. A (very pro 2nd Amendment apparently) three judge panel will review California's Nordyke v King (07-15763) case soon. link
 
Last edited:
I would love to see the 9th circuit affirm a 2A individual right, if nothing else we might see the "California" comments being slapped down a little.......:evil:

Question,

If any one state says that, based upon the Heller ruling 2A is an individual right. incorporated in state X etc, is this binding on other states via the "Full Faith and Credit" clause ?
 
If any one state says that, based upon the Heller ruling 2A is an individual right. incorporated in state X etc, is this binding on other states via the "Full Faith and Credit" clause ?

No, the Full Faith and Credit clause does not work like that. Depending on whether the challenge is brought in state court or federal court, other states/circuit court of appeals can still reach a different conclusion.

In fact, one of the quicker ways to get to the Supreme Court is if there is a split in the Circuit Courts about whether something is constitutional (i.e. D.C. Circuit and 5th Circuit say 2nd is individual right, everyone else says collective). Since there is already "precedent" saying the Second Amendment does not apply to states (all of it predating the doctrine of selective incorporation and all of it based on some dubious cases), I am sure some states/Circuits will cite those cases in upholding state restrictions.
 
Incorporation relies upon a previous SCOTUS decision that says the US Constitution and BoR don't limit state action. SCOTUS has decided to interpret the 14th Amendment as the means to limit state action...hence "incorporation". It would apply everywhere in the US, except where they decide it doesn't ;)
 
Its not like Hitler had a real choice. He had a pact with japan that required it.

Hitler had a choice, even taking away his penchant for abiding by treaties only when it was convenient - the pact only applied if either nation was attacked. Keep in mind that the Germans invaded the Soviet Union on 6/22/41, and by the early fall of that year were begging the Japanese to open a second front against the Russkies in the Far East. Had the Japanese done so, or even not ruled it out, then Stalin wouldn't have been able to shift 400,000 Siberian troops to the Western Front to hold off the Germans, and the war would have turned out very differently.

Regarding Chicago and its lawyers - I'm not so sure that they're stupid. It is that they are being forced to represent a stubborn and arrogant client that says "I want to fight this fight no matter what." DC's attorneys were in about the same position. Most lawyers would walk away from this, but when you've got a large city as your client, it is hard to walk away - because you'll be walking away from every other case that they have with you, or will have with you in the future. I think that Daley will, as others have stated, be looked upon very favorably by us, and very negatively by the anti-gun side in a couple of years at most.

C'mon, Scalia was almost begging for an incorporation case to come before the Court. What do Daley and his evil minions expect?
 
Daley not giving up, more laws coming

From the garbled comments he made, it sounds like Chicago is getting ready to enact a local version of the failed federal "Brady II" legislation.

"Brady II" featured an "Arsenal license" if you had more than 20 gun parts, and an "ammo stockpile" license if you had more than 1000 rounds on hand, among other provisions (I think a license for regular capacity magazines was among them). "Brady II" was introduced literally immediately after the 1994 "assault weapons ban" and Brady Bill were passed.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1076100,CST-NWS-gun26web.article

Daley pushing new gun ban measure
Despite pressure, city holds on to handgun ban

July 26, 2008
Recommend (3)

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/[email protected]

Chicago is fighting tooth and nail to keep its 1982 handgun freeze, in part to protect first-responders, even as suburbs such as Wilmette and Morton Grove are throwing in the towel, Mayor Daley said today.

In fact, Daley is talking about drafting yet another ordinance to spell out the responsibilities and liabilities of homeowners in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision to overturn Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

If the nation's highest court says it's OK to keep guns in your home for self-defense, what's to prevent those guns from being used against police officers and firefighters who respond to a domestic quarrel or other emergency, the mayor said.

"What does a policeman do when there's a domestic battery [call] and they're both armed? Do they enter the home or apartment or do they wait outside? ... How 'bout the neighbors? How 'bout the postman -- all the other issues that go with people coming into your home or close to your home? ... Whose responsibility is it when your son takes the gun outside and police come by?" Daley told reporters at a senior citizen development in Roseland.

"You have to look at a new ordinance in order to protect firemen and policemen going to the scenes of people who have armed themselves in their home. ... We serve and protect. We're not supposed to lose our lives ... Morton Grove can do anything they want. What I'm saying is you have to look at the first- responders and how it's gonna jeopardize their lives."

The mayor's laundry list of questions does not stop at the safety of first-responders. He wants to know just how far the Supreme Court is prepared to go to protect the 2nd Amendment.

"It's just not allowing people to arm themselves. How many guns do you have -- 50, 60? Can they have a .357 Magnum? Can they have ammunition that will go through a wall? What is the liability of the owners? ... Do you have to have insurance if you have a gun? How much ammunition can you have if there's a fire? If a fireman is going to your home and you have 40 weapons and 1,000 rounds, do we have a responsibility to notify all the neighbors?" Daley said.

"There's a lot of questions to be asked. I don't look at this lightly [and say], 'Oh, because the Supreme Court [overturned Washington's handgun ban], we're just gonna dismiss it and, all the sudden, people can arm themselves.'"

In a 5-to-4 decision issued June 26, the Supreme Court overturned the Washington D.C. handgun ban on grounds that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to possess a handgun in your home for self-defense. Daley called it a "frightening" ruling that harkens "back to the Old West."

Hours later, the National Rifle Association put Chicago, Morton Grove, Evanston and Oak Park directly in the crosshairs. The NRA filed lawsuits seeking to overturn handgun bans in all four jurisdictions.

Wilmette repealed its handgun ban on Tuesday. Morton Grove is expected to do the same next week.

Chicago's Corporation Counsel Mara Georges has expressed confidence that a federal judge would dismiss the lawsuit. She told aldermen this week that Chicago's handgun freeze was "not invalidated" by the Washington D.C. ruling because three prior Supreme Court decisions have "found that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and municipalities." Washington D.C. is a federal jurisdiction.
 
Heh... We must be making progress, they've gone from "Ban them for the children!" to "Ban them for the first-responders!" :scrutiny:
 
"I don't look at this lightly [and say], 'Oh, because the Supreme Court [overturned Washington's handgun ban], we're just gonna dismiss it and, all the sudden, people can arm themselves.'"

Attaboy, Dick! Let 'em have it. Show the Supreme Court and the United States government that you're the boss.

They and the people need to understand at last that you, Adrian Fenty, Mike Bloomberg, Ray Nagent, and other mayors are not bound by the Constitution of the United States of America.

You, Adrian, Mike, Ray, and other mayors run independent countries with your own laws, armies, and courts just like the emperors of old.

Chicago, D.C., New Orleans, New York, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Columbus, and all the other city-states are your feudal domains run for your benefit and according to your rules.

Lock up anyone who disagrees. It's time for you and Mayor Mike to show everyone who is boss. You're Boss Daley for sure.
 
My...Daley sure has a lot of questions.

e.g.,
What's to prevent those guns from being used against police officers and firefighters who respond to a domestic quarrel or other emergency, the mayor said.

Uhhh...The laws against shooting at police officers and firefighters?
 
My...Daley sure has a lot of questions.

e.g.,

What's to prevent those guns from being used against police officers and firefighters who respond to a domestic quarrel or other emergency, the mayor said.

Uhhh...The laws against shooting at police officers and firefighters?

But you're thinking rationally and talking honestly. Boss Daley and the other Mayor-Bosses don't believe in laws or have any confidence in them. They certainly do not believe in the subjects they rule. When bosses like Daley, Fenty, Nagin, Bloomberg, and others in their consortium talk "laws" they mean "power," "control," and "domination."
 
When bosses like Daley, Fenty, Nagin, Bloomberg, and others in their consortium talk "laws" they mean "power," "control," and "domination."

And I suspect somewhere in there - somehow or other - MONEY.
 
Honestly after the Heller verdict i first saw " incorporation " on a gun blog , and the fella was nice enough to explain the concept and how it relates to me . Now i was LE for years , and had a fair grasp on scrutiny levels among other issues , i however did not understand that any civil right only applies to the states ( in fairness to my teachers i likely understood but forgot ) in the level that it is assigned . I thank either Sebation from snow flakes in hell or Rob Allen from sharp as a marble blog for taking the time to re educate me on the " incorperation " issue as the 14th stipulates ( or not on some issues lol ) .

IMHO now as a flawed scholar, if we can push an incorperation issue to the setting court we have today we likely will get the same split that we did on heller ( hey a 5/4 is a win folks ) . If however a justice is replaced before the court hears a case ( assuming a case gets cert ) then all bets are off . IIRC at least one justice , and maby 2 were replaced from the time that the original " heller " case was filed and the time it came to the SCOUS . This was factored in , and in fact is why Allen Guerra argued his first case at the SCOUS . The young firebrand put in years for little or no money to advance the case . He literally grew up with the case , and in fact due to nothing more than honor got to argue it all the way to the top . Some say he should have argued a broader case that might involve say ccw or title weapons ( machine guns ) . Some dont understand courts , much less the SCOUS . Allen did just fine by all us gun owners . For the first time since the constitution was signed the SCOUS has stated that YOU and I have a right to posess a firearm , and not only that defense was a reason stated , not militia dutys , but defense of the home and hearth . Now to many of us here this is only common sense reading the 2nd . However for many its a lightning strike out of the blue . That brings us back to today and the original post , " incorporation " as a question . IMHO some will continue to attempt to restrict rights ( such as DC is doing but it looks like congress may take a position to over rule the city counsel and open dc up to say autos ect in compliance with heller no matter they like it or not lol ) . Chicago is likely to be our battleground to insist that local governments submit to the law of the land ( again that risky and inconvenient for both sides incorporation issue ). Chicago can and will spend every tax dollar they have collected to fight allowing residents of their fine city from joining the USA at large . Hell i just read a piece the other day where the mayor questioned having guns in he home due to the dangers to firefighters and other first responders . I am not kidding here , he actually stated in public that firearms in an unoccupied home can endanger firefighters. He did not say that " somedood " might shoot firefighters, he did not say that somedood might menace firefighters , he did say/imply that responding to an address that MIGHT have a firearm or ammo somehow made firefighters ( sorry but he was big on them ) or other personnel at risk . All i can think is that daily will make it an " incorporation case " assuming dc dont somehow out fumble them and bring up the issue in a proven looser circuit for gun control .

With the background i have posted ( which is by no means all the background ) my point is that we need to select the next case as carefull as " heller " was . We need to hit the right case with the right folks , and frankly that is not going to happen with the rush of cases that claim 2nd grounds for felons that are here now . Of course once we get " incorporation " settled well we may look at just what " bear " means or other issues . No matter what this issue wont be truly codified in my lifetime , nor my grandchildren's . We however owe thanks to Mr Heller( and co plaintiffs all ) and his legal advocates who took a 200 year step .
 
Of course once we get " incorporation " settled well we may look at just what " bear " means...

I would agree that those are the issues - and in that order - that should be addressed next.

It must be - and I believe will be - clearly established that Heller applies to ALL citizens of the U.S.

Next it must be - and I believe will be - clearly established that "bear" means "carry".
 
The case will probably have to go all the way back to Scotus.


Pull a check on federal indictments chicago corruption and get this:

http://chicago.fbi.gov/history.htm

And Operation Graylord:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greylord

Operation Greylord was an investigation conducted jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division was an investiation into corruption in the judiciary of Cook County, Illinois (the Chicago region).
The operation took place in the 1980s. Ninety-two people were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, ten deputy sheriffs, eight policemen, eight court officials, and a member of the Illinois Legislature.
Operation Greylord was named after the wigs worn by judges in Britain.
First Assistant United States Attorney Candace J. Fabri led many of the prosecutions.

Chicago has a Long and Distinguished history of being dirty and doing whatever they want. It's just going to take 6-7 years to catch them at a federal level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top