2nd Amendment Does Not Apply to States

[Guest mikedwood]

No, the interpretation and the application of it have.

Yes, and as you can see the intent is to maintain a well regulated security force. That is now state and local government, and unless the Feds want to take over law enforcement that is a responsibility claimed by the st

ate.

Huh? That statment blows my mind over anything I have ever heard. Are you saying I don't have the "right to bear arms" because that is taken care of by someone else. So I need not worry?

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((Official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.); http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=6260

Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985) (The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist's wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler

So if police have no "duty" to protect over the officers moral obligation to the job, I'll take that right back please.

I'm adding this later:

Dave I hope I misread as well. I hope your statement was a guess as to how you think SCOTUS will handle it and not what your actual opinion. I agree with a lot you say on this forum. The way I am interpreting your views in this thread have me 100% baffled.

Edited March 17, 2010 by mikedwood

[Guest KWW67]

No, the interpretation and the application of it have.

Yes, and as you can see the intent is to maintain a well regulated security force. That is now state and local government, and unless the Feds want to take over law enforcement that is a responsibility claimed by the state.

Dave, I am gonna have to disagree on this one. I think it has been well established that the "people" ARE the "Militia". Not the standing armies. This intent dates back to the the American revolution. The misinterpretation did not come til years later when some liberal judge(s) saw it different. I believe this has been re-established. Now, if I misread your post I do apologize.

[Worriedman]

I think the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment serves a purpose and the SCOTUS is doing what it can to keep it from being repealed.

I would like to see your reasoning relative to the danger of the Second Amendment being repealed.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Worriedman

[DaveTN]

Huh? That statment blows my mind over anything I have ever heard. Are you saying I don't have the "right to bear arms" because that is taken care of by someone else. So I need not worry?

Not what I’m saying at all. Sorry you wasted all that time typing.

Dave I hope I misread as well. I hope your statement was a guess as to how you think SCOTUS will handle it and not what your actual opinion.

I have stated several times what my opinion on the right to bear arms is. However… I also stated it is an all or nothing proposition. You have the right to carry or you don’t. The SCOTUS is going to rule that the states can regulate the bearing of arms and therefore (in my opinion) it is not a right.

[Guest mikedwood]

Not what I’m saying at all. Sorry you wasted all that time typing.

I have stated several times what my opinion on the right to bear arms is. However… I also stated it is an all or nothing proposition. You have the right to carry or you don’t. The SCOTUS is going to rule that the states can regulate the bearing of arms and therefore (in my opinion) it is not a right.

Funny this Internet thing. Miss a few words or read one with the wrong inflection and I'm all . It's been a long month. Sorry about that.

I still think I made a good point on it.

I see now what you are saying.

Gun ownership since the probably the Civil War has been more and more a privilage each passing decade.

It seemed to be turning around maybe not at light speed but turning. I know I'm certainly hoping for that.

It appears to me that Rights are not something that 300,000,000 people get. Because people have forgotten or don't care that with rights come responsibility. There is really no right we have 100% anymore.

[Guest Jamie]

Jamie why do you care what I think?

In one respect, I don't. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

On the other hand, I have an interest in how you mind works... HOW you think... that causes you to come to conclusions concerning Heller, McDonald, and the 2nd amendment that are the exact diametric opposite of what most legal and constitutional scholars and experts believe is going to happen.

But then again, I'm rapidly losing interest in even figuring that much out about you.

Does it upset you that much that I am wrong?

Couldn't care less. See above.

What will I do?.....

Didn't ask what you'll do, asked what you'll think.

Jamie, I couldn’t care less what the SCOTUS says; but I am absolutely sure what is going to happen and I doubt there will be any surprises. If the Supreme Court of the United States of America rules that all citizens of this country can strap on their favorite sidearm and go walking down the street…. I will get on this forum and publically apologize to you because if that happens you truly are the best legal scholar I have ever seen post here.

However… when they rule that the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment guarantees the right to own arms but not the right to bear arms are you going to do the same? They are going to shoot down the Chicago hand gun ban. Are they going to end the carry ban in the state of Illinois? No, they are not going to address it and they don’t have the horsepower to do it.

What I’m really curious to see (because I don’t know) is what Daley does. I know Daley and I know that he is not going to take this well. He has to already know what is going to happen. This whole case is because of him thumbing his nose at the Heller decision. He can admit defeat and do away with the ban, He can acknowledge the ruling and find a way around it, or…. If he has the support of the state he can do the same thing he did the last time and tell the SCOTUS to go pound sand. I don’t know what he will do but I guarantee there will be news crews around him 24/7 when it’s close for a time for the ruling. He will be entertaining.

Save your apology, I don't need it.

Oh, and one other thing... SCOTUS is not going to directly "shoot down" Chicago's gun ban; a lower court will do that, provided SCOTUS does as expected, and rules for incorporation.

It was a lower court that sent the whole question of incorporation to them in the first place, because they couldn't rule on the ban without knowing the answer.

It acknowledged the individual right to own guns, and acknowledged the states right to regulate the bearing of them. same as its always been in most states. Same thing that’s getting ready to happen in Chicago… Heller version 2.

Which brings me to this: Heller DID NOT rule that the states have the right to dictate or control the bearing of arms.

It only ruled that the 2nd was an individual right that had nothing to do with any militia, and that DC couldn't ban handguns, or require people to keep them disassembled in their own homes. They ruled that the ENTIRE 2nd is an individual right, not just part of it.

The court did make the comment that some laws controlling the bearing of arms are "presumed constitutional", but if you'll read over the oral arguments for McDonald, one of the justices.. Roberts or Scalia, I can't remember which, plainly states that they did not rule on that.

If Heller had indeed covered whether or not the states are in charge of the bearing of arms, the McDonald case wouldn't have happened.

What’s changed?

And don’t give a smart answer about what you think has changed or what’s going to change in another 50 years. What has changed now? Do the citizens of the state of Tennessee have a right to carry? How about Illinois? Will you be able to carry a handgun in Chicago?

Let's see if I can just hit the high points here... For one, SCOTUS has started taking and ruling on 2A cases for the first time in about 70 years. And in doing that, has finally done away with that whole "The 2A isn't an individual right" argument, as well as the one about it existing only to ensure that the states could raise a militia.

Also there's the current case regarding incorporation, and the possibility of dumping some if not most of the more restrictive gun laws, in the not too distant future, based on additional cases that may be heard by other courts, or SCOTUS it's self. ( Not another 70 years anyway. )

In general, civilians carrying arms has become much more acceptable than it was 20 years ago, with a good many states having "must issue" carry permits of some kind.

But that fact has little to do with SCOTUS directly, though it may play a role in their decision regarding incorporation, and possibly, the other parts of the 2nd that they have yet to rule on.

BTW, the court has yet to rule on either the "bear" part of the second, or the "shall not be infringed" part. If their current trend of taking 2A cases continues, they probably will. If it doesn't, it'll be up to the lower courts to decide, until SCOTUS chooses to step back in. At least that's my understanding of the situation.

I hope I've answered your questions adequately.

J.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It won't need to be a right if Congress and the WH keeps on its path of killing this country. Everyone will end up being their own militia just to defend themselves from this tyranny. I do feel better knowing SCOTUS is considering putting the 2nd back where it should have been all along.

There are too many laws that will have to be undone just to get our society more

functional, productive and just. The 2nd is the lynch pin to all of that. To keep our

government from continuing down the wrong path is what this is all about. I think SCOTUS is trying to put the government back in the hands of the people, especially after hearing what people like Shumer said about circumventing the Constitution. Else,

they wouldn't be hearing this case and probably others.

[Guest Espanola]

While Mass SC may have weighed in on the issue, so did Washington State's supreme court in late February, 2010...

"Washington --(AmmoLand.com)- The Washington State Supreme Court has issued a precedent-setting opinion in the case of State v. Christopher William Sieyes which holds that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights “applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment” This outstanding opinion was authored by Justice Richard B. Sanders, a Supreme Court veteran who clearly understands the history of both the state and federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Perhaps what makes the Sanders opinion so remarkable is that it places the Washington Supreme Court ahead of the United States Supreme Court in recognition that the U.S. Constitution’s recognition of the right to keep and bear arms applies to all citizens, and should also place limits on state and local governments, as it does on Congress.

Quoting Justice Sanders, “Lower courts need not wait for the Supreme Court the Constitution is the rule of all courts both state and federal judiciaries wield power to strike down unconstitutional government acts.”

The Sanders opinion was issued February 18, 2010 and its significance quickly registered with gun rights organizations and activists across the map. For example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation hailed the ruling. NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane called it “a welcome development and victory for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.”This state high court opinion, among other things, effectively “puts on notice” anti-gun groups in the Evergreen State that their continued efforts to impair the rights of legally-armed citizens will face not only growing legislative resistance, but intense legal scrutiny. Though not binding on other states, it clears a path for other state supreme courts to follow.

Despite its brevity at only 24 pages, Justice Sanders’ opinion – which was co-signed by five of his colleagues, including Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen – thoroughly and proactively debunks any suggestion that the authors of Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution did not mean specifically what they wrote:

“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

Perhaps Justice Sanders put it best when he noted, “This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice.”

Of course, as a gun owner, we'll kinda like this one better than Massachusetts' ruling...and hopefully, the USSC will follow Washington state's lead...

2010 February | AmmoLand.com - Part 17

[Guest PatriotCSA]

I think all of this is really not such a bad thing. Hearing about liberal states screwing their citizens' rights to self-defense into the ground doesn't lose me any sleep at night. In a nasty Katrina style situation, great numbers of people are unarmed in those areas and they will learn the hard way why Americans in other states remain armed.

[Chief07]

Mass. "Commie-crats"

They make me sick.

[wjh2657]

I am not a lawyer (my mother and father were married when I was born and to each other!) But I do claim a relationship somewhat like friendship with some the poor souls. This weekend at State Guard drill I had some spare time and talked to our JAG.

He makes the point (and some reading on the web seems to substantiate) that most of us labor under the illusion that the SCOTUS can overturn laws. He says this is not true. He states that the court simply declares they are unconstitutional but that the legislature still must go back and change or repeal subject law. And, that until they do, the law is still valid and enforceable.

Long story short:

You still could be arrested and incarcerated under the subject law. You can appeal and possibly get a reversal at SCOTUS level later. But you still go to prison, you are still a convicted felon (if violation is a felony) and you still lose, lose, lose.

SCOTUS decisions are not Acts of GOD, they are just another legal mechanism and can work extremely slow if at all. It will still be up to the court you are tried in as to whether the SOTUS ruling has any effect on your case as to the present disposition of your case.

In most cases , you will have already have served your time, had name entered on so many data bases that it would be impossible to correct them all, lost your family, home and income before your appeal reaches a level that will even consider constitutional law. (This consequence is based on an actual case involving a close friend)

( Again, I am not a lawyer, but based on what we discussed this weekend, I think I will stick with following the state law until the state changes it.)

The JAG is a Conservative, a politician (strike TWO), a member of the NRA and has an HCP, so don't start screaming Obama Commiecrat crap about his remarks. He was just making a legal evaluation of the subject matter.

Edited April 11, 2010 by wjh2657

[Guest PatriotCSA]

America has been a lose, lose, lose society for a while now. Being a liberty lover is a lot like being in the Confederate Army. Each victory simply stalls total defeat and the lost battles begin to come more quickly the closer you get to the end. Hate to sound pessimistic, but it's the way things have gone since I've been on the planet.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I am not a lawyer (my mother and father were married when I was born and to each other!) But I do claim a relationship somewhat like friendship with some the poor souls. This weekend at State Guard drill I had some spare time and talked to our JAG.

He makes the point (and some reading on the web seems to substantiate) that most of us labor under the illusion that the SCOTUS can overturn laws. He says this is not true. He states that the court simply declares they are unconstitutional but that the legislature still must go back and change or repeal subject law. And, that until they do, the law is still valid and enforceable.

Long story short:

You still could be arrested and incarcerated under the subject law. You can appeal and possibly get a reversal at SCOTUS level later. But you still go to prison, you are still a convicted felon (if violation is a felony) and you still lose, lose, lose.

SCOTUS decisions are not Acts of GOD, they are just another legal mechanism and can work extremely slow if at all. It will still be up to the court you are tried in as to whether the SOTUS ruling has any effect on your case as to the present disposition of your case.

In most cases , you will have already have served your time, had name entered on so many data bases that it would be impossible to correct them all, lost your family, home and income before your appeal reaches a level that will even consider constitutional law. (This consequence is based on an actual case involving a close friend)

( Again, I am not a lawyer, but based on what we discussed this weekend, I think I will stick with following the state law until the state changes it.)

The JAG is a Conservative, a politician (strike TWO), a member of the NRA and has an HCP, so don't start screaming Obama Commiecrat crap about his remarks. He was just making a legal evaluation of the subject matter.

It's good to hear from a JAG officer. It's also good to be reminded that there is a process and legal procedure. Those are things that slow things down, and that's not necessarily bad.

Whatever the decision in the McDonald, some things will change and they will cause a battle between "rulers" and

"citizens", not just in Chicago, but all over the country.

I have a feeling that there will be serious problems in

our country if it goes the wrong way. Not from SCOTUS,

but from the Federal government with its current leadership. The Fed will probably brush off whatever decision SCOTUS makes and the "people" will get their forum by way of a Constitutional Convention if that's the case. It may take a year or two but I think that will happen. Gun owners aren't the only ones upset about losing rights. The part of the country that is left paying taxes for the part that isn't is already in the beginning

phase of an uprising against of our government.

SCOTUS was slapped in the face once by Obama this year and Obama has fused an alliance together that is against him. His idealogy is convincing most thinking

people that he is dragging this country down and I

doubt this alliance will allow it to stand. If things don't change drastically in November, Obama will keep on marching his marxism into us and he won't stop until

force is the only option. One side will be put into a corner

and it will get ugly.

I really hate to say this but I do think it will happen this way if a CC doesn't happen. There are already too many wrongs to be righted. Most of us know what a bit of liberty feels like and we will not give it up until we are

either destroyed or are successful. I paraphrased that last sentence from a quote by Machiavelli which I think

is accurate.

[wjh2657]

There is more at stake here than first meets the eye. Tennessee has already incorporated the RTKBA into its state constitution. So, as a Tennesseean, the 2d Amendment isssue is not as critical as it is in Chicago. Tennessee is however, getting ready to sue the federal givernment over the healthcare law, decrying it violates the 10th amendment (which I have a strong "gut feeling" it does.)

A pro 2dA ruling in Chicago ( a Federal victory over state law) will most likely weaken the power of the 10thA. Intentionally or not, it would seem that the progun stance of the SCOTUS may not be driven so much by a "love affair" with the NRA as much as by the long term changes it will make in other parts of the Constitution.

I personnaly am more worried about draconian Federal laws being forced on us at state level and driving us bankrupt than I am as to whether I can carry a machine gun into a Chicago bar. ( Sarcastc echoing of the recurring theme that this decision is goig to "change everything.")

We want to be careful in our glee at this point, we just could be in the process of being hoodwinked into losing more that we gain. As Tennesseeans our state has already proven to be pro gun so we gain nothing by the Chicago decision but we could lose a lot by the weakening of our states rights.

Nice trees but there is a forest there.

Edited April 11, 2010 by wjh2657

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No argument wjh2657, but how could a pro2A ruling weaken the 10th? Just asking because I haven't thought about that kind of a backfire. I understand that case law has bobbed and weaved through the constitution since the beginning, but how can the simple language be changed like that?

[DaveTN]

It's good to hear from a JAG officer. It's also good to be reminded that there is a process and legal procedure. Those are things that slow things down, and that's not necessarily bad.

Whatever the decision in the McDonald, some things will change and they will cause a battle between "rulers" and

"citizens", not just in Chicago, but all over the country.

I have a feeling that there will be serious problems in

our country if it goes the wrong way. Not from SCOTUS,

but from the Federal government with its current leadership. The Fed will probably brush off whatever decision SCOTUS makes and the "people" will get their forum by way of a Constitutional Convention if that's the case. It may take a year or two but I think that will happen. Gun owners aren't the only ones upset about losing rights. The part of the country that is left paying taxes for the part that isn't is already in the beginning

phase of an uprising against of our government.

SCOTUS was slapped in the face once by Obama this year and Obama has fused an alliance together that is against him. His idealogy is convincing most thinking

people that he is dragging this country down and I

doubt this alliance will allow it to stand. If things don't change drastically in November, Obama will keep on marching his marxism into us and he won't stop until

force is the only option. One side will be put into a corner

and it will get ugly.

I really hate to say this but I do think it will happen this way if a CC doesn't happen. There are already too many wrongs to be righted. Most of us know what a bit of liberty feels like and we will not give it up until we are

either destroyed or are successful. I paraphrased that last sentence from a quote by Machiavelli which I think

is accurate.

I would like to think that you are right that something will happen; but I doubt it.

I may be wrong (and I hope I am) but I don’t think there are enough Patriots left to do anything about it.

If our economy collapses the Constitutional issues mean nothing. Our economy is being destroyed by us. We can’t blame the government or any other country for that. We could change that today and we choose not to. So if “The People†will stand by and watch as their economy circles the drain; I doubt they will get real excited over a Constitutional Amendment even a Constitutional Convention….. Do you?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yes, I do think there are enough patriots left. You're right, Dave,

about blaming us. We are the government. We are going to have to change a few things ourselves, too. Every day we stand by and watch, more people see what's happening. Obama may have been the best thing to wake this sleepy America up.

[DaveTN]

There is more at stake here than first meets the eye. Tennessee has already incorporated the RTKBA into its state constitution. So, as a Tennesseean, the 2d Amendment isssue is not as critical as it is in Chicago.

Why?

It is illegal to bear arms in both states.

Illinois 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.

Tennessee Constitution

26. Weapons; right to bear arms

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

[Worriedman]

DaveTN said:

Yes, and as you can see the intent is to maintain a well regulated security force. That is now state and local government, and unless the Feds want to take over law enforcement that is a responsibility claimed by the state.

<O:p</O:p

Following Dave’s reasoning:

<O:p</O:p

1. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution simply requires that the Federal Government has no authority to deny the Citizens of the various States to keep and bear arms. Tenth amendment will substantiate this, as there is not other section in the U.S. Constitution which references the issue. None.

<O:p</O:p

2. So far, SCOTUS has not seen fit to incorporate the Second to the States, (yet) as in the case of the First, as case law brought before it has not decried the necessity. However, the current Court did agree to give standing to the McDonald case, so here we go. Heller is the first stone rolling down the hill, got the word “individual†out there, no reading brought to bear of “militia†or “collectiveâ€. As I am not an attorney, simply a constructor, I understand the reality of needing a foundation in place prior to erecting the walls.

<O:p</O:p

3. The States in fact, have the Power to regulate the wearing (bearing) of arms. It is so stated in our Tennessee Constitution, duly recognized, in Article 1 Section 26 of the Declaration of Rights:

<O:p</O:p

“That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.â€

<O:p</O:p

The important thing to take away from this is that the citizens have a right which is expressed, and the action which succeeds that right is their common defense. The Legislature is charged with regulating the wearing of arms, such that “crime†is prevented, per Opinion No. 96-080, by Office of the Attorney General State of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:pTennessee</ST1:place</st1:State>, April 25, 1996 indicates that such regulations must "bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime....", otherwise, any restriction placed by the Legislature is unconstitutional. We simply need to remind our Legislators what their duty is, and what chains we have upon them for the wielding of the Power vested in them. If we allow the Jimmy Naifehs and Johnny Shaws of Tennessee to bilk us of our Rights, that is on us, because if a Legislator fails in their duty, or presupposes to rule instead of serve the citizens of this State, they need to be voted out, and replaced with honest people who understand the Law, and agree to abide by it!<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p

LE is chartered to investigate crime, not to prevent it, and as such the duty of providing safety for the individual lies with that individual. If any would argue that point, find me a case where an individual was mugged, robbed, assaulted sans the presence of an LEO, and the successful suit against a City, County or State entity judged liable because there was no Police presence to thwart the crime.

<O:p</O:p

(DaveTN, find me TN case Law that says otherwise.)

<O:p</O:p

We get to “vote with our feetâ€, if a State takes upon itself unreasonable restrictions relative to gun ownership and ability to carry the same, we get to move to one that is reasonable.

<O:p</O:p

Edited April 12, 2010 by Worriedman

[wjh2657]

No argument wjh2657, but how could a pro2A ruling weaken the 10th? Just asking because I haven't thought about that kind of a backfire. I understand that case law has bobbed and weaved through the constitution since the beginning, but how can the simple language be changed like that?

It has to do with the use of legal language. Each time federal authority is used to strike down state or local authority the language of the 10th Amendment becomes less clear and the actual authority granted to states becomes less and less strong. The 10th is not specific and depends on court decisions as what the Federal government can do. If they can come in and over ride local authority in any issue, the state's strength and authority has a little less reach. Remember, what the Constitution "says" is determined by the Federal Courts, not a group of forum posters! Any precedence in Federal courts giving the Federal Government the "say" does so by taking away the authority from the state.

It is strange: we seem to be adamant that we don't want the Federal government to tell us what to do as individuals but we seem so eager to have the federal government tell the states what they have to do. In either case they (Feds) are operating out of their level of authority.

[wjh2657]

Why?

It is illegal to bear arms in both states.

Illinois 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.

Tennessee Constitution

26. Weapons; right to bear arms

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

Why would SCOTUS rule on inclusion of the 2dAmendment if the 2dA is already included in the Illinois Constitution? It would be a moot issue. Again it sure seems like there is more here than meets the eye. BTW this is the first that I have heard that RTKBA was included in the Illinois Constitution. The argument everybody seems to harp is that the SCOTUS was forcing ISC to include the RTKBA.

Thus Chicago cannot ban handguns, IAW IL Constitution correct? And if this is the case why is SCOTUS hearing the case? This being the case, it is all a matter for the Illinois SC not SCOTUS. I suspect that it is the old argument of what is meant by "bear arms" or the definition of "police power" that is at issue.

If SCOTUS rules that Federal law trumps the state constitution inclusion of RTKBA then the court is ruling that only the federal courts can enforce RTKBA.

Does that really sound like a good deal?

Edited April 11, 2010 by wjh2657

[DaveTN]

DaveTN said:

Following Dave’s reasoning:

(DaveTN, find me TN case Law that says otherwise.)

<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p

I can debate either side of what your 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment rights are. But it is pointless; no matter which side you take you end up at the same point….. You do not have a right to bear arms in the state of Tennessee and if you choose to bear arms without first paying the state and getting permission you are subject to arrest.

If you want to argue how things should be; I have said many times I believe that we have a right to carry; but I am not tying that right to a dog like the 2mnd amendment. Shoot man, you are beat before you get started.

[DaveTN]

Why would SCOTUS rule on inclusion of the 2dAmendment if the 2dA is already included in the Illinois Constitution? It would be a moot issue. Again it sure seems like there is more here than meets the eye. BTW this is the first that I have heard that RTKBA was included in the Illinois Constitution. The argument everybody seems to harp is that the SCOTUS was forcing ISC to include the RTKBA.

Thus Chicago cannot ban handguns, IAW IL Constitution correct? And if this is the case why is SCOTUS hearing the case? This being the case, it is all a matter for the Illinois SC not SCOTUS. I suspect that it is the old argument of what is meant by "bear arms" or the definition of "police power" that is at issue.

If SCOTUS rules that Federal law trumps the state constitution inclusion of RTKBA then the court is ruling that only the federal courts can enforce RTKBA.

Does that really sound like a good deal?

The SCOTUS has already said that you have a right to keep arms, but not the right to bear arms. Since Daley made an argument that ruling did not apply to Illinois; the case will be heard again. The Court will rule the same way they did in Heller, but in this case they will answer the question of whether or not a total ban on handguns is reasonable.

The SCOUTS is never going to make a state allow carry; it just isn’t going to happen. I believe several states would flatly refuse compliance. We already fought a war over that.

I’m pretty sure I know how this case will go. What I am unsure about is what Daley’s response will be. But if it doesn’t go his way; it could be entertaining.

What earth shattering acknowledgement of rights do you think is going to take place in Illinois with this case?

Here is a link to the Illinois Constitution. If you are questioning what is in it, click on “Bill of Rights†and read Section 22.

Illinois Constitution

[wjh2657]

DaveTN,

Not questioning you, but agreeing with you. The remark about the state of Illinois Constitution was not to say it doesn't contain RTKBA, but to question why the impression has been given in our own pro-gun press that the whole import of this decision was to force RTKBA into the State Constitution, when it was already there. Again the issues involved are not the issues put forward in the media. I question whether the Justices are going to push Inclusion when it is already in the state constitution.

What earth shattering changes? None. Just as in Heller. After all the ballyhoo, you still can't buy guns or keep one in most of D.C. much less the sudden freedom from gun laws that was shouted in the streets everywhere else.

We are laying precedences, admitted. But there are no quick and dramatic changes here to rejoice about. Your RTKBA are still only as safe as your own state constitution and the willingness of your state administrations to back it up.

[Worriedman]

You do not have a right to bear arms in the state of Tennessee and if you choose to bear arms without first paying the state and getting permission you are subject to arrest.

If you want to argue how things should be; I have said many times I believe that we have a right to carry; but I am not tying that right to a dog like the 2mnd amendment. Shoot man, you are beat before you get started.

I am not beat till I draw my last ragged breath.

This is where you and I disagree. I believe that in Tennessee, I do have the Right to bear arms, subject only to restrictions which are proved to reduce crime. I believe that the current TCA statues which limit those rights via the "Intent to go armed" clause are unconstitutional, and given the education of our voters, and the removal of enough Legislators who stand for usurping the rights of our Citizens, we have a chance to remedy that unconstitutional situation.

Unlike Illinois, which evidently is all for a Police State:

Illinois 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.

Tennessee has the Power to regulate the wearing of arms vested in it's Legislature. All that is required is to place Constitutional minded individuals in the seats of that Legislature and get the laws fixed, no mean feat, but possible.

To take back Citizens Rights from a non-regulated "police power" would seem much more difficult.

Again, vote with your feet, seems you have already done that.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Worriedman