Supreme Court Appears Ready To Overturn Chicago Gun Ban

[Statistical]

Since 1982, Chicago has outlawed hand guns in the city, even for law-abiding residents who sought to keep one at home. That ordinance was challenged by several city residents who said it violated their rights "to keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment.

The case forced the high court to confront a simple question it had never answered: Did the 2nd Amendment limit only the federal government's ability to regulate guns and state militias, or did it also give citizens a right to challenge state and local restrictions on guns?

All signs Tuesday were that five justices saw the right to "bear arms" as national in scope and not limited to laws passed in Washington.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy described the individual right to a gun as being of "fundamental character," like the right to freedom of speech. "If it is not fundamental, then Heller is wrong," Kennedy said, referring to the decision two years ago that struck down the hand-gun ban in the District of Columbia. Kennedy was part of the 5-4 majority in that case.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sc-dc-court-guns3-20100302,0,682706.story

The Supreme Court WILL incorporate the 2nd against the states.

If you are looking for the yes, no answer that is all you need to know. That and Kennedy's other questions makes it clear. The only question is where they will draw the line. What is a reasonable restriction and what is infringement? Obviously a complete ban is out and ban on felons is in but most restrictions are less black & white.

The only thing that makes me sad is it looks like SCOTUS is going the Due Process route not the "privileges and immunities" route. The P&I route is more "correct" IMHO and would open the door to incorporation non-enumerated rights (rights that are not named but still exist) like Abortion or Marriage Equality.

From the quotes ALL of the Justices seems concerned about opening that door. Scalia interrupted the plaintiffs attorney multiple times and chided him on bringing up "privileges and immunities".

Also I wish they would make the damn transcripts available already.

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. If only they felt that way about the rest of the Bill of Rights

[onenote]

4. actually,virtually all of the bill of rights but the second amendment has been 'incorporated"

to apply to the states through the fourteenth amendment.

[StClone]

7. SCOTUS is Black and White

With the SCOTUS's top notch so-called legal acuity to parse rulings of the past and square it with The U.S. Constitution one things seems clear with this Wing Nut Case Court when cases arise: No real need to analyze just vote black or white no holds barred without regards to past rulings. Honestly Glen Beck could be the sole decision maker in the recent big cases its that mindlessly ignorant of its impact.

[skippy911sc]

2. I believe that

the government should restrict criminals and punish criminals not citizens who legally acquire a firearm. I am not sure if many people are aware of this but the law in Chicago that makes it illegal to own certain firearms is void if you happen to be a political official. In fact most alderman in Chicago are allowed to conceal carry a hand gun. I am on the fence with regard to concealing a firearm but legal ownership is something I think we have the right to do. Just a personal thought and belief, however I do not belong to the NRA nor do I associate with their thought process.

[ThomWV]

3. A 70 year old essay I read last night drove it home for me again how important this right is

Everyone has a right to self defense. It is as fundamental as breath.

[zipplewrath]

5. I don't know how they avoid it.

If they extend this to the 2nd, how do they avoid the 10th? The tenth in essence makes reference to even MORE fundamental rights. How can one claim that an enumerated right is covered by the 14th, but a right considered so fundamental it didn't need to be enumerated isn't? Of course, I wonder how they avoid the tenth when ruling on the second. If there are states rights (and the tenth clearly indicates there are) how do they determine that the states have no second amendment related rights?

[Statistical]

6. Legal tap dancing. Slaughterhouse should be overtuned and P&I given respect.

However it seems the court (even most liberal members of the court) are unwilling under any circumstances to overturn the abomination called Slaughterhouse and restore P&I.


There is no conflict between 2nd & 10th.
The 10th deals with POWER not rights. The 2nd enumerates a right. No governmental power can override a right. If they could then entire BofR is worthless. The only question is does the 14th cause the 2nd to apply to the states. If not then the 10th doesn't apply because 2nd doesn't apply. If (and it will) the 14th causes the 2nd to apply to the states then any power to infringe upon it is a power which is prohibitied (by the 2nd + 14th).

There is no such thing as states rights. States have absolutely no rights. They have powers which can never override rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States only have powers not granted to federal govt and only powers not prohibited by the Constitution. Incorporation makes the prohibition expressed in the 2nd apply to the states as well.

In effect Chicago gun ban is just that an expressed power of the state. Incorporation would make that power prohibited.

[DissedByBush]

8. Easy, there are no states rights

States have no rights. Only people have rights.

States only have powers reserved to them that are not expressly given to the federal government.

[mzteris]

9. general info about gun-related deaths in Chicago

A total of 510 people were murdered in Chicago during 2008. Eighty percent of these victims were killed by gunfire. Nearly half were between the ages of 10 and 25, and the vast majority were male.1

. . . One final point, which bears repeating, is the impact that gun availability has particularly when combined with such risk factors for youth violence involvement as mental health problems, alcohol or drug abuse, and school failure or disengagement.
Europe, Canada, and Australia have many youth who suffer from these same problems, yet their homicide rates are far lower than ours in the United States.
Gun Violence Among School-Age Youth in Chicago 9

In the absence of easy gun availability, youth problems in school or with mental health or substance abuse are not nearly as lethal. Guns intensify violence and make violent events more lethal (Zimring, 1968; Cook, 1991; Cook and Ludwig, 2006). The lethality of guns means it is important to try to keep guns away from youth who are engaged in violence as an independent goal, above and beyond trying to reduce youth involvement with violent events.

. . . With around 250 million guns already in circulation in America (Cook and Ludwig, 2006), it is not surprising that many people have come to believe that it is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of youth, criminals, and other high-risk people. But our own study of the underground gun market in Chicago suggests that, perhaps surprisingly, conventional wisdom may be overly pessimistic.

Transaction costs in underground gun markets are substantial: prices are high relative to the legal gun market; wait times are considerable; mistrust is common between buyers and sellers; and many transaction attempts go unfulfilled, even by people who are well-connected in the underground economy (Cook, Ludwig, Venkatesh, and Braga, 2007). The underground market seems to work far less smoothly for guns than for drugs, perhaps in part because guns, unlike drugs, are durable goods, so the number of market transactions is lower and exchange becomes more difficult to manage. These patterns suggest opportunities for enforcement efforts that disrupt the illicit gun market. Measures such as buy-and-bust operations or efforts to incentivize arrestees to provide information about buyers and sellers in the gun market may prove more effective than those directed at illegal drugs.

Deterring gun carrying may also help reduce the homicide rate in Chicago above and beyond efforts to prevent gun access in the first place. As noted above, 80 percent of homicides in Chicago in 2008 involved firearms, while CPD data for 2007 suggest that nearly three-quarters of all homicide victims were found outdoors. These figures suggest that in a large share of all homicides the offender must have been carrying a gun in public beforehand. Our analysis of Chicago’s underground gun market also suggests that young people, criminally involved young adults, and even drug-selling street gangs respond to police pressure against illegal gun carrying and use.
While it is certainly true that federal gun policy in the United States is currently suboptimal, our study suggests that there are still several ways in which strategic enforcement pressures can help reduce gun use.

. . . 3 In 2008, there were 412 gun homicides in the City of Chicago. Figures for the numbers of gun homicides for the years 1999 through 2007 come from the Chicago Police Department’s “2006–2007 Murder Analysis in Chicago” (https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Homicide%20Reports/2006%20-%202007%20Homicide%20Reports/06-07_MA.pdf). If we look at the past five years rather than the past 10 years, Chicago averages 360 gun homicides per year. Analyses by Crime Lab team member Philip Cook of Duke University indicate that the likelihood that an assault-related gunshot wound results in the death of the victim is about one in six, so that for each gun homicide we observe in a city, on average we expect there to be an additional five nonfatal firearm assaults (Cook, 1985)

4 The most detailed data on Chicago homicides are drawn from the 448 reported cases occurring in 2005, including 190 cases in which the victims were between the ages of 10 and 24. We examined these cases closely using data from the Illinois Violent Death Reporting System (IVDRS). IVDRS links data from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office, Illinois Department of Public Health, and Chicago Police Department to create the most detailed available picture of these homicides. Ninety percent of these young homicide victims were male. More than 90 percent were African American or Hispanic/Latino. African Americans comprised 36 percent of Chicago residents and 67 percent of young homicide victims. These figures reflect the disproportionate toll violence takes on African American youth, who across the United States face seven times the homicide rate experienced by non-Hispanic whites.

5 According to the 2000 Census, Hispanic/Latino residents comprised 26 percent of the Chicago population. By 2005, Hispanic/Latino youth were likely a higher percentage of Chicago residents in their age group. That same year, 25 percent of young Chicago homicide victims were identified as Hispanic/Latino. Although Hispanic/Latino youth are not “overrepresented” overall in Chicago’s youth homicide statistics, segments of the Hispanic/Latino community clearly experience high rates of homicide and interpersonal violence that require police response. In contrast to recent claims about the role that immigrants play in escalating violence, 88 percent of these homicide victims were United States born

. . . 9 For this report, University of Chicago student Garrett Brinker systematically reviewed web/media accounts of every available homicide in which the victim was a Chicago youth between 13 and 18 years of age between September 11, 2006, and September 6, 2008. This analysis reviewed all stories in the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, and CBS News. Not every known murder was covered in these news outlets. However, news stories covered murders of 73 youth. Sixty-two of these homicides involved a firearm. One-fifth of these cases (15/73) involved an unintended victim caught in crossfire, killed by a stray bullet, or a victim killed within a crowd into which shots were apparently fired indiscriminately.

http://crimelab.uchicago.edu/pdf/Gun_Violence_Report.pdf


***********

[The Straight Story]

11. Does not sound like a problem relating to guns, more like gangs/drugs/etc

Millions own guns and do not use them to harm others.

More people in Montana, per capita, probably own guns than those in Chicago and don't have the murder rate.

Why are these people killing one another so much in Chicago? Were they possessed by gun demons (which we think we can control) or is something else driving them?

Instead of going after the tools we should actually put in some effort to find the reasons - but it is always easier to blame the tool and not the user for the end product.

[mzteris]

12. you should read the whole report

it's about the WHYS and how to prevent. Pretty interesting report overall. Not an argument for nor against gun control per se...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. Good information! It shows 3 things pretty clearly.

1) A huge segment of the victims of gun violence are black/latino males, ages 10-25. Most crimes were committed outdoors.
In plain english, these were overwhelmingly gang-bangers or people involved/affected by gang violence.

2) "Guns, unlike drugs, are durable goods, so the number of market transactions is lower..." - this would mean that very few guns in the criminal underground could contribute to a disproportionate amount of violence. This is not surprising coupled with the studies that show crime as a whole is committed by a disproportionately small number of repeat offenders. A large drug problem means you have alot of drugs getting through... a large gun violence problem could be caused only a handful of firearms. This makes gun violence difficult to eradicate because of the consequence of letting but a few guns through the net.

3) "The lethality of guns means it is important to try to keep guns away from youth who are engaged in violence as an independent goal, above and beyond trying to reduce youth involvement with violent events." Coupled with this statement, ...figures suggest that in a large share of all homicides the offender must have been carrying a gun in public beforehand."These are by far the best and worst observations in the entire article. The crux of the issue lies within the first statement. It careens recklessly toward the solution and then veers off the path at the last possible into fiery failure of logic. Said otherwise, it is important to keep guns out of the hands of gangs & criminals... (Brilliant! Right on!) ...and we should focus on "guns" as the root of the crime problem rather than the criminals committing it. The latter part is some miserable short-sighted failure. And then indicated by the second quote, one last caution sign mowed down by this trainwreck of logic, criminals will get guns and they will carry them. The laws did not keep criminals from obtaining illegal items because, after all, they are criminals.


I guess the biggest laugh one gets from this gem of an article is:
Chicago BANS these guns the report says need stricter regulation. Obviously, bans aren't working for people ignoring the law. Although I'm sure the ban works for reasonable people who comply with the laws. I guess they're not the problem. I'm curious, what more strict regulation comes after a ban on possession and carry? :eyes:

[Igel]

22. This is a great line:

"it is important to try to keep guns away from youth who are engaged in violence."

I wholeheartedly agree.

I suspect that the omitted agent of that passive sentence, however, might be a matter of disagreement. People should avoid passive constructions. Some will construe the omitted agent as the federal government; some, the state government; some, the county or city government; some might even construe it to be an authority somewhat closer to the youth in question. I'd be in the last category for things like handguns and rifles--even those that the city of Chicago would allow.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. True, the problem is Chicago's solution for keeping guns out of

criminal's hands steps on the rights of law abiding citizens moreso than actually stopping criminals.
The federal government has no problem with states or even cities enacting programs to combat criminal gun possession.
The problem is when the cities impose laws that unjustly strip the rights of people without due process.

Example:
It is alright for cities and schools to enact DARE programs to fight drugs or sexual awareness programs to fight teem pregnancy.
It is not OK to spy on them electronicly using webcams without probable cause and a warrant.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

13. That is nonsensical.

Lots of late night studying being necessary for good grades, the right of students to keep and drink soda will not be infringed.

Who has the right to drink soda? The student or the grades?

A well stocked pantry being necessary for the success of a restaurant, the right of the chef to keep and store quality ingredients shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to store ingredients? The restaurant or the chef?

Variety being necessary for the creation of a great pizza, the right of the pizza-lover to keep peperoni, sausage, and cheese shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to keep peperoni, sausage, and cheese? The pizza-lover of the pizza?

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.

Who has the right to keep and bear arms? The people or the state?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. Let me play devil's advocate here:

Lots of late night studying being necessary for good grades, the right of students to keep and drink soda will not be infringed.

Who has the right to drink soda? The student or the grades?

The student, as a member of that school and participant in such classes.

A well stocked pantry being necessary for the success of a restaurant, the right of the chef to keep and store quality ingredients shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to store ingredients? The restaurant or the chef?

The Chef, as an employee of a restaraunt.

Variety being necessary for the creation of a great pizza, the right of the pizza-lover to keep peperoni, sausage, and cheese shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to keep peperoni, sausage, and cheese? The pizza-lover of the pizza?

The pizza-lover, for the express purpose of creating great pizza.

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.

Who has the right to keep and bear arms? The people or the state?

The people, acting expressly on behalf of the regulated militia.

[Statistical]

17. Where does it say that?

If the 2nd said.

"An informed electorate being necessary to a functional democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed"

Would the protection apply only to books on politics?
If someone said "I am sick of the partisanship I am not ever voting again" could they be arrested for owning books?

Or maybe the protection is more general? That the govt protects books and ensures literacy because only an informed electorate could lead to a functional Democracy. Even those who don't participate or who read fiction lead to a society where reading and learning is common and accepted. The electorate (who is a subset of the population whom the right applies) is more informed and the state's interest is protected.

The second amendment is to ensure citizens have access to arms. By citizens having access to arms, any militia formed from those citizens would be more skilled and more "well regulated" (which means functional, effective).

The American colonists were well known in Europe as being good marksman. They achieved this not through formal training or military academies but from a lifetime of experience around firearms.

George Mason said it best when they were debating the second amendment:

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor."

If the right to bear arms is restricted to those in the militia and the govt controls who is in the militia (or even if one is allowed to from) is hardly is a check on the govt and the right is meaningless on face value. It would be similar to having the right to free speech as long as you have a free speech license. The license of course is issued by the govt. Of course you still have free-speech right? Your free speech isn't infringed ... as long as you have a free speech license.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. Agreed.

I was merely arguing for the sake of arguing... devil's advocate.
I figured that one interpretation of the 2A against rkba might go as I outlined.
Clearly the papers, documents, definitions, and discussions of the time limit and cement the true intent of the 2A...
Giving republican groups and shills like the NRA ammunitions to lobby for the gun-corporatism!!1! (lol, j/k)
(Arguing for the sake of arguing is never quite as fun with informed logical people. :hi:)

Yes, the framer's intent of the 2A is to arm citizens and fulfill/enable the unalienable right of self defense.
That intention is every bit as valid 230+ years later. The framer's collective wisdom was nothing short of genius.

This reminds me of one of my favorite hollywood quotes:
"Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea... and ideas are bulletproof."
-V for Vendetta

[Statistical]

21. Yeah what I don't get about antis is the idea of "quaint"

That somehow a armed citizenry is quaint. So what is it is?

Rights don't go away if they are "quaint". If they did imagine how dangerous that would be.

Some future govt decides free speech is "quaint", or freedom of religion is causing to many problems, or trials & warrants are too expensive. We removed those without due process. They are long since past their time.

Anyone feeling the second is hurting not helping liberty should work to have it repealed. That is the lawful method of dealing with "quaint" protections. Trying to pretend it doesn't exist undermines all the other rights too.

[Winterblues]

24. Rights don't go away if they are "quaint".

Bush* would disagree with you. He created unwarranted searches because he believed the 1979 FISA Law was quaint and outdated. Obama has not changed that..

[Biker13]

14. Ah...

If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle.

[Statistical]

18. Transcripts are now available and all 9 justices should be impeached.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

Executive Summary: We accept Slaughterhouse is wrong but it would be "hard" to do the right thing so we will stay on the side of injustice.

:puke:

[skippy911sc]

20. Punish people who do illegal activities

not the people who do not commit crimes. The problem I have with most of these reports or studies is they fail to display how many of these gun related deaths were from legally owned firearms. How many automotive related deaths are there? How many people die from falling down stairs? I think the data needs to be flushed out and give us all the details not just the selection of the author. I am a firearm owner, do I think they should be banned... No. Do I think everyone should carry a gun... No. Would carry if given that right, probably not.

[IndianaGreen]

23. This means that even felons will be able to purchase guns

if SCOTUS were to legislate (which is what they are doing) something the Framers never intended.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. No it does not.

Scotus upholds, and pro-RKBA groups agree, that the loss of your 2A rights is certainly possible under due process.
How would this ruling overturn the fact that felons can lose their 2A rights via due procesS?

[Statistical]

27. Can you read?

The questions before the court.... the ONLY question before the court is:

Are the protections of the 2nd amendment (which currently apply to the federal govt) incorporated against the states via the 14th amendment?
If so is the complete ban on handguns in Chicago a violation of the 2nd amendment?

The prohibition on felons not being able to posses firearms IS A FEDERAL ONE. That isn't a question for the case to decide. Regardless of if the 2nd does or does not apply to the states has no effect on the felon prohibition. None. The more direct case of Heller v. DC in which confirmed that the 2nd protects an individual right at federal level did result in cases where felons sued to have right to own guns and all those cases were defeated.


Lastly the founders could care less if felons had guns. They had no such prohibitions in place. Simply put if a felon was so dangerous that they couldn't be trusted with firearms then they were hanged. Dead felons have no need for firearms. Felons were not prohibited from owning firearms until 1968 (Gun Control Act of 1968).