Guns in Chicago

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Manigault

There's two problems in the current case before the Supreme Court. Lead plaintiff McDonald has a legally registered shotgun, so he can protect his home. Further, the complaint states he lives in a 'high crime' area of the city. The guy lives in Morgan Park, so he is full of it. The Heller case involved much stricter regulations.

Next, a co-plaintiff states that he has a rifle, the city registration expired and he cannot re-register it. As we all know, that is just not so. He had a chance to re-register it last year under the Mell law and blew it.

The "you can have a shotgun or rifle" argument will not hold water before the court. DC tried that, and it was practically laughed at by the justices. They already ruled handgun bans violate the Second Amendment.

This is about a big issue left unanswered by Heller: incorporation. Scalia pointed out in a footnote that the cases cited as saying the Second doesn't apply to the states, also were written when the first amendment was not applied to the states. Furthermore, Cruikshank, the most significant of those old cases, was used to disarm Blacks in the South after the Civil War, who were slaughtered by armed racist vigilantes when they were disarmed by gun control laws (the South post-Civil War is where gun control laws really began, NY's Sullivan law in the 20th century was meant to disarm Italian immigrants). The court rather strongly hinted in Heller they wanted a case to reverse those rulings, they couldn't in Heller as it was a federal city not a state or other city. Chicago's laws are dead and it's just a matter of time before it's official. NY's laws are next on the list.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

In Vermont? What, you afraid the Abenaki are gonna come down from St. Francis for your hair?

Actually there have been issues lately with drug dealers coming over from NY and MA and the associated crime. No place is crime free anyways. VT is safe but no place is absolutely safe. The people behind the Dartmouth professor's killing in NH not all that long ago were going to kill some people in VT but the people were armed and they got scared off. Then they found their unarmed victim in NH, sadly. I've always been of the mindset to be prepared for everything. I have used my handgun I carry a few times, all on rabid animals or in one case, to scare off a porcupine in my tent while camping. In August I saw at close range a catamount while on a walk, that showed very little fear of me, and there's bears too of course. Ignorance may be bliss but I'm not ignorant of my surroundings.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Manigault

The question is on if the second amendment applies to the states or just federal districts. There is a chance that the court could rule that the second amendment does apply to the states, but still uphold the Chicago and Oak Park gun laws as being reasonable restrictions.

Nope, they ruled in Heller that handguns bans are not reasonable. So, once they apply the amendment to the states, no more handgun bans. Furthermore, states will be required to allow guns to be carried ("bear arms"), either openly or concealed. There's a case working its way up to do precisely that, in DC.