Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Gun Rights - Expanding?

It seems unbelievable, but the Tribune had not one, but two separate recent editorials that outline how gun rights might finally make there way back to Illinois in general, and Chicago specifically.

First up, Steve Chapman (we'll link his post at RealClearPolitics):
  • For nearly 70 years, the Second Amendment has been the Jimmy Hoffa of constitutional provisions -- missing, its whereabouts unknown, and presumed dead. [...] But recently, a federal appeals court did something no federal court had ever done before: It struck down a gun control law as a violation of the Second Amendment.
  • Even some liberal constitutional experts now agree that gun ownership enjoys constitutional protection. The most notable is Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who once subscribed to the collective rights theory. The amendment, he writes, recognizes "a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in defense of themselves and their homes." The appeals court agreed, striking down D.C.'s prohibition of handguns in the home, as well as regulations on other guns.
  • It would be a stunning turnabout if the Supreme Court adopts that view. It would remove some of the most extreme laws from the books -- such as the virtually total ban on handguns in Chicago and some suburban communities. Gun rights advocates would feel sweet vindication.
  • Our good and well-meaning friends in Chicago, Wilmette and other towns that have outlawed the possession of handguns, even in the sanctity and privacy of the home, might want to notice that the nation's second-highest court has tossed out a similar weapons ban.
  • This doesn't mean that the D.C. decision applies here, but the conflicting rulings invite the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court, where three sitting justices--Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter--said in a 1998 dissent that "bearing arms" goes beyond a collective right in the context of a well-ordered militia. Combined with the votes of recent conservative appointees, the high court could sweep away draconian laws that don't even allow the possession of a handgun to protect yourself and your family in your home.
  • I'd add this to what the court said: Arguing that you have only a "collective" right to bear arms as part of a militia is as ludicrous as saying that the Bill of Rights protects your free speech rights only as a part of a larger group, such as the American Civil Liberties Union.
Ginsburg and Souter, two of the courts more liberal leaning members already have written that "bearing arms" goes beyond a collective right. Combined with the more strict constructionists/originalists currently leading the Court, we might be living in some very interesting times shortly. No wonder the mayor is pushing so hard downstate for the gun registration and bans - he wants to frighten as many people as possible before the Supreme Court strikes down any number of gun laws.

(Thanks to SecondCitySarge for the initial link to Chapman's article - we ran across the Byrne article on our own)

Labels:

15 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's about time!

3/20/2007 12:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's about time that there was some sanity seen in regard to the 2nd Amendment. Bring it on! Fuck Daley and Blowjob!

3/20/2007 01:26:00 AM  
Anonymous tackleberry said...

Up until now it was political suicide
to touch the subject until now.
Remember lisa madigan right before the vote w/Birkett? "he took money from the NRA!!!" I wonder how many abortion clinics gave her money?
Well, us Police and Retirees are covered for now; u citizens have to push this thing now and gather some steam, and put the likes of daley and blago on the run..

3/20/2007 06:54:00 AM  
Blogger Schicklegroover said...

Ever get in a conversation with citizens about gun laws and realize that they think WE, the police, are FOR gun control? They are always shocked when I tell them I have no problem with citizens owning/carrying guns. They really do assume we consider it safer that there are gun laws. Goes to show how effective the brainwashing of America has been. Has any study or poll just plain asked cops their opinion whether law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry? Seems like we have the most to lose and that therefore our opinion should count for something.

3/20/2007 07:11:00 AM  
Blogger Schicklegroover said...

An armed, law-abiding citizenry will bring down the crime rate. May take a little while but it when it happens just watch the mayor and brass try to spin it. Spin it they must or it will point to their current failure. Will they reverse their current statistical manipulation and begin ACCURATELY reporting the violent crime rates so they can point to the increase and say, "See, it's out of control since we gave the people their guns?" Wonder if the city fathers are worried about a class action lawsuit by victims of violent crime that couldn't protect themselves due to his denial of their constitutional rights.

3/20/2007 07:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I applaud the courts ruleing on this matter and I would like to add that all the thousands of gun laws on the books do nothing to deter crime. A criminal is a criminal and a criminal does not live by the law.Now we will hear from the libs that we will be less safe,even in our own homes,if this ruleing is allowed to stand,well, a very famous person once stated "Thoes who trade liberty for security deserve neither".All of us who are police know there is no substitute for a firearm when needed.

3/20/2007 10:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We had to attend some B.S. breifing at Homan Square over a year ago. This CAGE unit Sargent get up there and starts bragging about how Chicago is leading the nation in gun enforcement strategy working with the BATF, blah blah. Then he says something about "NRA strokes" and "gun nuts". Real smart-ass stuff.

I would like to say to him: Why don't you tell the officers how your CAGE unit jammed up the retired State Trooper (who inexplicably chooses to live in Chicago) because he forget to renew his gun registration? Real good police work there! Be proud, you CAGE guys are so cool!

3/20/2007 11:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the LAW ABBIDING citizens in this city were able to have guns in their homes, how much you wanna bet willy would think twice about breaking in? But I guess if you are the monarch, -- excuse me, mayor, you don't have to worry about things like that when you have a 24 hour detail guarding you and your family. So what if the peasants, -- excuse me, people become victims, right? -- Or your police officers for that matter? Either let the citizens have the means to protect their own lives and property or put the safety of your police first by adequately arming them and increase the size of the department to keep up with the growing population here. You can't have it both ways -- disarming your citizens by outlawing guns and disarming your police with ridiculous policies and relentless media appeasement.

3/20/2007 12:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The right to bear arms!! When will the whiny liberal minded morons get it into there thick skulls that guns don't kill people the asshole that pulls the trigger is killing people!!! lets put guns into all law abiding citizens hands---granny needs a gun to protect herself--Did u see that poor 103 year old women in newyork that got knocked upside the head several times for her purse by a lowlife that i wouldn't even recoginize as a human being--if granny was armed the story would be over. What an awesome deterent!! jagoffs would be less likely to pick on the helpless because the helpless might be "packing" God Bless America

3/20/2007 02:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that most sober law abiding citizens should have guns
I also agree that the granny in question would have been better off IF she was able to access her weapon
In that situation she was too close to the ape that punched her

When they find him, he ought to go to the hospital intensive care unit for a few months

3/20/2007 05:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not by accident that the liberal media, and that's just about all of them, NEVER report stories where armed citizens citizens prevent a crime. It happens every day but you will never read about it in the papers or see it on TV, or hear about it on the radio. SUPPORT THE NRA, THEY SUPPORT YOU!

3/21/2007 09:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Guns are tools of destruction, nothing more... Hunting? Why? The stores have all you need in food stuff.

3/22/2007 08:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Guns are tools of destruction, nothing more... Hunting? Why? The stores have all you need in food stuff.

3/22/2007 08:46:00 AM

That's right, jagoff. They're great to destroying predators, 4-legged and 2-legged.

No one has to defend their right to own firearms. They can own them just because they want to. Read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, lefty.

3/23/2007 03:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such talk of gun violence. If you were nice to people you would not be attacked. While I was in Japan they had no gun crime. People respected each other. If you can't ban the guns get rid of the ammo. Guns then are only clubs without bullets.

3/23/2007 01:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such talk of gun violence. If you were nice to people you would not be attacked. While I was in Japan they had no gun crime. People respected each other. If you can't ban the guns get rid of the ammo. Guns then are only clubs without bullets.

3/23/2007 01:07:00 PM

So, tell me...are you retarded, stupid or a just another wack-job liberal?

Park your car at 63rd & Ashland or Madison & Pulaski and walk a few blocks. Let me know how being "nice to people" works for you. You really ARE stupid!

3/24/2007 03:23:00 AM  

<< Home

Newer Posts.......................... ..........................Older Posts