Guns in Chicago (Time: felons, safer, health)

[ccjarider]

well yes, but until today that other thread had not been touched in six months. Anyway if it is a topic with little interest, it will die on it's own.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by WhaThe

The Heller decision right? What scares me is how close that decision was. 5-4 I think? Makes me worry it could have tipped the other way. Or will one day.

What scares me is that it was a 5-4 vote on whether or not the right to bear arms is an indivual right versus a government-held right was also 5-4 when it should have been a 9-0 slam dunk. I can see, maybe -- maybe -- a plausible argument that a handgun ban is "reasonable" under certain circumstances if you use a rational basis standard of review. What may be the saving grace for Chicago's handgun ban is that Illinois has a "look the other way" statute that immunizes a person from prosecution for a illegal weapon possession if it is used in the otherwise lawful defense of one's home, so Chicago's ordinance (and Wilmette and Moron Grove and whatever other Illinois municipalties have gun bans) has a sort of "reasonableness" factor built into it. I don't know how the non-Illinois ordinances under review will hold up though. But like I said earlier, I'm a little skeptical that the USSC will enjoin the 2nd upon the states because at least two of the conservatives are also "historical constructionists," and enjoining the 2nd upon the states after 200-some years of no such incorporation doesn't fit the "constructionist" mold very well.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by anoroc

What I fear is with relaxed gun laws/right to carry it will motivate criminals to do more muggings with the intention to score new guns...

Do you have any evidence of this occurring in any of the 40-some states that already have concealed carry laws? Did muggings suddenly shoot up in those states?

[Careless]

Originally Posted by Drover

What scares me is that it was a 5-4 vote on whether or not the right to bear arms is an indivual right versus a government-held right was also 5-4 when it should have been a 9-0 slam dunk. I can see, maybe -- maybe -- a plausible argument that a handgun ban is "reasonable" under certain circumstances if you use a rational basis standard of review. What may be the saving grace for Chicago's handgun ban is that Illinois has a "look the other way" statute that immunizes a person from prosecution for a illegal weapon possession if it is used in the otherwise lawful defense of one's home, so Chicago's ordinance (and Wilmette and Moron Grove and whatever other Illinois municipalties have gun bans) has a sort of "reasonableness" factor built into it. I don't know how the non-Illinois ordinances under review will hold up though. But like I said earlier, I'm a little skeptical that the USSC will enjoin the 2nd upon the states because at least two of the conservatives are also "historical constructionists," and enjoining the 2nd upon the states after 200-some years of no such incorporation doesn't fit the "constructionist" mold very well.

The minority in Heller didn't argue that it was a collective right, they argued that it was an individual right that was subject to more restrictions than the majority felt were reasonable. Basically, they felt that it was a right that was subject to such restrictions that it was no right at all.

Originally Posted by anoroc

Now we're talking about free guns, and yes cops have lost guns.

Cops don't lose guns because they're taken from them while the criminals are also grabbing their wallets. Criminals simply do not, ever, try to rob police officers with the primary goal of getting cash. Does not happen.

[Venom]

It'll probably be annexed once a MOD sees it

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Careless

The minority in Heller didn't argue that it was a collective right, they argued that it was an individual right that was subject to more restrictions than the majority felt were reasonable. Basically, they felt that it was a right that was subject to such restrictions that it was no right at all.

They certainly did argue it was a collective right even as they tried to pretend they were only examining the scope of the individual right they supposedly agreed upon with the majority.

"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a 'collective right' or an 'individual right.' Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right . . .

"Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by
this case."

So in other words, even though they tried to frame it like they accepted the "individual rights" premise, they did so by acting as though military use of weapons is an individual right. But in reality they're arguing over whether it's a collective right (military) or an individual right (for "hunting and personal self-defense").

"The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States."

The right to bear arms as part of a state militia is clearly not an individual right, it is a collective right. So I'm not buying that the dissent was merely arguing over the scope of the invidual right.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Having guns can go either way. It might increase crime, because people have more access to guns. But criminals seem to have no problem getting guns anyway.

It might deter crime, or it might not. I'm not sure if anyone can say with certainty either way.

We rarely have crimes in my little town, but we all know each other. But if you did break in to someone's house here, they would probably have at least a couple of guns. A lot of them have dogs, too. But this is a hunting community. Most people deer hunt or turkey hunt. But my town does not apply to any cities.

Overall, I have no problem with people owning registered guns. But don't make the fee to register guns extremely high. Then people just won't register them. We probably need to be more careful as to who gets guns, but sane, law-abiding citizens should be able to protect their homes.

[It'sAutomatic]

I think conceal-carry laws have a minimal effect on crime compared to banning handguns, so I feel that we should go ahead and err on the side of personal freedom.

[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.

[anoroc]

Originally Posted by Drover

Do you have any evidence of this occurring in any of the 40-some states that already have concealed carry laws? Did muggings suddenly shoot up in those states?

I have no evidence, I’ll admit it’s only a hunch nothing else.

Basically what I’m saying is most individuals can own and carry a gun responsibly, but the careless or vulnerable percentage is what’s frightening.