Link: High Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

It's On A Slab said:

High court looks at reach of Second Amendment - Yahoo! News

It will be interesting to see where the Court falls in this.

Note that the "Congress shall make no law" phrase is not in the 2nd amendment, so I would think the state and local govt. bans should be called into question....in that, if the Federal handgun ban was unconstitutional, so would the state and local bans.

WASHINGTON – The right to bear arms is back before the Supreme Court. This time the focus is on handgun bans in Chicago and one of its suburbs.

The justices were hearing arguments Tuesday in a case that asks them to extend their 2008 decision striking down a Washington, D.C., gun ban to state and local laws.

The court ruled then that the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to possess guns for self-defense and other purposes, but that decision only applied to federal laws, such as Washington, D.C.'s.

The court has ruled that most of the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says local officials need flexibility to decide how best to protect their communities.

Click to expand...

This is entirely a state issue. The SCOTUS should declare that they have no authority to decide the issue one way or another and refer it back to the SCOTSI (Supreme Court of the State of Illinois?) to be decided in light of the relevant provisions of the Illinois Constitution.

For the right to keep and bear arms to be one of those "incorporated" by the XIV Amendment, some legislator (Federal or state) would have had to declare it to be such in 1866-8 when they were debating the ratification of the XIV. I am unaware of any such declaration form the period (but would be happy to read evidence if it should surface).

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

I am not sure that this is even a states issue. This is a protected right that no government can abrogate or infringe upon. It is like freedom of speech or assembly. States cannot infringe upon those rights...

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

NYBamaFan said:

I am not sure that this is even a states issue. This is a protected right that no government can abrogate or infringe upon. It is like freedom of speech or assembly. States cannot infringe upon those rights...

Click to expand...

I here what you're saying, but the civil rights being talked about during the debates on the drafting, passage & ratification of the XIV Amendment were the right to serve on a jury, to testify in court, own property, enter into contracts. Even as basic a right as the right to vote was not included in the "privileges and immunities" that the XIV Amendment covered. If voting had been covered by the XIV amendment, then the XV Amendment (passed by Congress February 26, 1869) would have been superfluous, and legislators at the time would have said so. In other words, when the XV Amendment was proposed, members of Congress would have said, "Wait, there is no need to pass this XV Amendment. It is already included under the XIV Amendment." Instead, they subsequently passed and ratified the XV Amendment. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights (Amendments I-X) and their application to the states has been a later view that has been read into the XIV Amendment.
Also, in 1875 the Congress would not have debated & passed the Blaine Amendment (which made it illegal for the states to establish a religion or to fund parochial schools with state money) because it would have already applied due to the XIV Amendment. Instead, the House passed the Blaine Amendment 180-7 (but it did not receive 2/3 of the votes in the Senate). Instead of voting "yes," the House members would have said, "Hey, the XIV Amendment already covers this. There is no need to pass this."

Illinois has a state constitution. I wonder what the state constitution says about the right to own firearms. If the good people of Illinois want to outlaw (or regulate) gun ownership through a provision of their state constitution, who am I to disagree with them?

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

Isn't there precedence here? Wouldn't the ruling that the Supreme Court made in the case with DC a few years back carry over to this case, even if it is a state or local issue?

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

can cities legally pass restrictive laws that are covered in the state constitution? bc this isnt just an illinois issue, this is a specific issue to the city of chicago.

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

Tidewater said:

This is entirely a state issue. The SCOTUS should declare that they have no authority to decide the issue one way or another and refer it back to the SCOTSI (Supreme Court of the State of Illinois?) to be decided in light of the relevant provisions of the Illinois Constitution.

For the right to keep and bear arms to be one of those "incorporated" by the XIV Amendment, some legislator (Federal or state) would have had to declare it to be such in 1866-8 when they were debating the ratification of the XIV. I am unaware of any such declaration form the period (but would be happy to read evidence if it should surface).

Click to expand...

The SCOTUS has routinely trampled on the intent of our forefathers concerning our Constitution-no need to think that they would abrogate the opportunity to meddle here.

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

nickknx865 said:

Isn't there precedence here? Wouldn't the ruling that the Supreme Court made in the case with DC a few years back carry over to this case, even if it is a state or local issue?

Click to expand...

I guess the DC law was considered a federal law as opposed to states or cities which aren't federal.

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

Bamaro said:

I guess the DC law was considered a federal law as opposed to states or cities which aren't federal.

Click to expand...

You are exactly right. The Federal District is subject to the laws passed by Congress.
A state would be a different case. It will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS sees it that way.

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

gmart74 said:

can cities legally pass restrictive laws that are covered in the state constitution? bc this isnt just an illinois issue, this is a specific issue to the city of chicago.

Click to expand...

Interesting question. The city of Choicago is a creature of the state of Illinois. There was a state of Illinois before there was a corporate entity called Chicago. I would think Chicago's actions would be limited by the state constitution.

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

my point is that this isnt a state vs federal issue. this is a municipality vs state/fed issue. does a municipality have the right to govern local people as they see fit considering they are directly elected by those people as opposed to being influenced by outsiders?

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

Islander said:

The SCOTUS has routinely trampled on the intent of our forefathers concerning our Constitution-no need to think that they would abrogate the opportunity to meddle here.

Click to expand...

You are probably right, but I would be overjoyed to see the SCOTUS declare they have no authority and tell the plaintiff to refer to his state court system and his state constitution.
By the way, NPR this morning said one of the plaintiffs was a black man, originally from Louisiana, who is trying to protect himself and his property from neighborhood thugs. I sympathize with his plight, but believe he should look to his state government, courts and constitution for redress.

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

gmart74 said:

my point is that this isnt a state vs federal issue. this is a municipality vs state/fed issue. does a municipality have the right to govern local people as they see fit considering they are directly elected by those people as opposed to being influenced by outsiders?

Click to expand...

I guess it would depend on the state constitution.
In our federal system, the peoples of the states are sovereign.
They created the Federal government, ratified their state constitution, established their state governments, created corporate cities within the territory of their states.
In Illinois' case, it would depend on how they drafted their state constitution, and what powers they declared corporate civil governments like Chicago should wield.
If they were wise, then they would leave Chicago to run things as Chicagoans saw fit, within certain parameters.

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

gmart74 said:

my point is that this isnt a state vs federal issue. this is a municipality vs state/fed issue. does a municipality have the right to govern local people as they see fit considering they are directly elected by those people as opposed to being influenced by outsiders?

Click to expand...

I think that this case is being heard to put this to bed as a protected right. Either it is a protected right and no state or municipality can infringe upon it, or it is not, and each state can decide for themselves. If the states are allowed to decide for themselves, this will be remanded back to the state supreme court for a final decision, but with precedent that this has officially become a state's issue...

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

Tidewater said:

I here what you're saying, but the civil rights being talked about during the debates on the drafting, passage & ratification of the XIV Amendment were the right to serve on a jury, to testify in court, own property, enter into contracts. Even as basic a right as the right to vote was not included in the "privileges and immunities" that the XIV Amendment covered.

Click to expand...

I'm as much of a state's rights guy as anyone you'll find, but I admit that this logic is lost on me. I fail to see how the fourteenth amendment is relevant on a second amendment issue.

It's not until the tenth amendment where we read that all powers not delegated to the Federal Gov't by the constitution are reserved to the states. The right to keep and bear arms, second only to that of speech and assembly, in the Bill of Rights of the national government, is clearly not a matter for states to infringe upon.

That is my reading, at least. Please tell me where I'm off.

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

NYBamaFan said:

I think that this case is being heard to put this to bed as a protected right. Either it is a protected right and no state or municipality can infringe upon it, or it is not, and each state can decide for themselves. If the states are allowed to decide for themselves, this will be remanded back to the state supreme court for a final decision, but with precedent that this has officially become a state's issue...

Click to expand...

I think you are exactly right.
That is why they are hearing the case.
I have no clue which way they will decide.

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

HomeBrew Tider said:

I'm as much of a state's rights guy as anyone you'll find, but I admit that this logic is lost on me. I fail to see how the fourteenth amendment is relevant on a second amendment issue.

It's not until the tenth amendment where we read that all powers not delegated to the Federal Gov't by the constitution are reserved to the states. The right to keep and bear arms, second only to that of speech and assembly, in the Bill of Rights of the national government, is clearly not a matter for states to infringe upon.

That is my reading, at least. Please tell me where I'm off.

Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the United States limits the powers of the Federal government.
It did nothing to the powers of the states. Each state had a state constitution to limit the power of their state government (although the Constitution for the United States, because the people of that state ratified it, does limit some things the states can do, but these limitations are spelled out in Article I, Section 10).
Before the XIV Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not limit the powers of the states.

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

So, ya'll are saying that a state can trump the Bill of Rights?

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

BamaFlum said:

So, ya'll are saying that a state can trump the Bill of Rights?

Click to expand...

We shall see...

Re: Hight Court hears huge 2nd amendment case today

BamaFlum said:

So, ya'll are saying that a state can trump the Bill of Rights?

Click to expand...

Not exactly.
What I would argue is that the Bill of Rights was not intended to, and did not, restrict the state governments. The Founders intended each state's constitution to deal with that state's government.