Mcdonald V Chicago

pmills

pmills

Active member
don your hats and ponchos for the impending shit storm...I still hope that there might be some civility in debating the topic. Therefore here are the things I understand to be relevant to the topic, if you think I've missed anything of the underlying principals that we will base the debate around please make that clear and separate from the rest of your argument.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I think it's fair to request that all arguments based on what the 2nd amendment says should include the full reading.

District of Columbia V Heller(2008):

The judges ruled that D.C. could not prohibit the private ownership of Hand guns within the city because D.C. is a federal enclave (not a state government). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense (see above in the text of 2nd amendment where it refers to a 'well regulated militia').

Background of Chicago:

There is no doubt that Chicago has had a history of crime issues. City law makers sought to resolve these issue of crime by banning hand guns (1982). It is important to note that the City law makers are representatives of the population, thus you can say that the people of Chicago voted to ban handguns.

*14th Amendment: *I am not entirely clear on how this plays into the debate, I hope someone like JD, (who has knowledge about this sort of stuff can bring it into the light) What I understand is that the 14th has a Due Process Clause which has been used to extend most of the Bill of Rights to the states -- whether this applies to the 2nd amendment I do not know

Long text found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Due_Process_Clause

Important notes on the case:

1. In the context of the Bill of Rights, the second Amendment is in place to protect the State from the Federal Government. The right to bear arms has (up until 2008) only been understood to protect a State's ability to have a state army.

2. Typically republicans/conservatives do not support the idea of Washington bureaucrats micro-managing state decisions. They would rather the state have the power to decide what is right for their own population.

I'll leave it here for now. Please remember to keep it clean and be honest. If you don't know what you're talking about -- admit it & ask questions.

 
hmmm this could get interesting. i personally can see both sides of this. the side of the states or in this case chicago, being autonomous entities. Therefore they can legislate waht they want. The constitution explicitly states that all powers not given to the congress automatically defer back to the states. (amendment 10)

on the other hand if a law, code, etc, is found to be in violation of the constitution it is struck down. on the basis that the US constitution is the supreme law of the land and all laws below it must comply with it.

so if i absolutely had to pick a side, i would say that this law, (using the english common law) should/will be struck down as unconstitutional. although im sure the case could be made that their is no stare decisis in this case because the supreme court case you are referring to was dealing with DC and not a state.

should be interesting.
 
Just some insight on the 14th amendment for you all. The 14th amendment was the first of the amendments to start limiting the power of the state, as oppose to older amendments that limited federal power. It says that all people born in the U.S. are citizens of the country and state (reversing Dred Scott). Assures privileges, immunities, due process, and that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, nor fail to provide equal protection of law. I think this is the part that deals most with the case.
Also an interesting note, the second amendment does not say right to bare arms to keep a militia, it just says a regulated militia is necessary then says the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. A bit ambiguous for sure but that is what it says.
 
thanks.

One point to be taken from this is that if there is ambiguity it should defer back to the states.

one note i heard; even back during the time of the founding fathers, there were regulations about the possession of arms in particular places. For example, it was illegal to have a musket in a bar in Boston.

Along a similar thought, back when the 2nd amendment was written the 'arms' to be considered were muskets. Since then the technology has changed, arms are considerably more concealable and deadly. I think we do want to be able to keep the technological advances in check -- does our right to bear arms entitle private citizens the right to hold nuclear weapons? I hope not. I think the courts are way too slow to be capable of keeping technology in check. It would be better left up to the state legislators who can respond much more rapidly.

 
I think there is something to say about the fact that those who will vote for the gun laws to be repealed will be also committing themselves to notion that a Washington Judge knows what is best for a small state/government.

When you compare the two governing bodies a state representative is an elected official who will reflect the wills of the people. While the judges are appointed life members who are not familiar with the specifics of the city or circumstances. Out of curiosity can you imagine how the case would go if there was one less Scalia and one more Sotomayor?

Is there anything to say about who makes the judgement of what constitutes an individuals' right to bare arms? Owning a beretta is one thing, but an Apache is also an arm -- while it may be a fantastic idea to own one, is not it up to the states to make the call?

What would a victory for McDonald entail, in these terms, for the method of assessing and regulating the technological advancements of arms?

 
Wasn't the decision to uphold the McDonald's rights based on the fact that if they said he COULDN'T own a pistol it was against his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and that would make him not considered to be a citizen which would be spitting in the face of the 14th Amendment?
 
Couldn't be... how would that argument not apply to any other weapon? I want a tank & a submarine, but my state doesn't even allow automatic rifles. Mr. Macdonald can have a musket if he wants, but no hand gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top