The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 5:45 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Oral arguments are scheduled to start tomorrow, March 2, 2010.
Here's the wiki on it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

I'm thinking there's going to be some changes in state and local gun laws coming from this. Nevertheless, we'll see just how much of a "right to bear arms" the Supreme Court feels is conferred by the 2nd amendment.

Does Deeger still visit these forums? I seem to remember some arguments he made on gun control. Monty's ability to post will be reinstated tomorrow too, I believe his thoughts conflicted with mine on this subject...

It's pretty cut and dried for me. I don't think any discussion on the merits of gun control matter, frankly. It's a right. Case closed. Rights can be restricted in certain instances and locations, but I think a location as big as Chicago is too big to declare a gun free zone. A courthouse? Sure, I understand. Not a whole city, not even the smallest in the US.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Last edited by Taskiss on Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:26 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:48 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
This is a no-brainer according to the current interpretation of the Constitution, and recent precedent. State law cannot override federal protections, and with the recent tearing down of the DC handgun ban, it seems obvious where the High Court stands on the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:53 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Except, the Court has changed since then.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:58 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Rynar wrote:
This is a no-brainer according to the current interpretation of the Constitution, and recent precedent. State law cannot override federal protections, and with the recent tearing down of the DC handgun ban, it seems obvious where the High Court stands on the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Apparently the Bill of Rights can be selectively applied which comes as a barn-sized smack in the head to me. If that wikipedia article is accurate some case referenced as Slaughterhouse created a loophole for states to restrict the BoR in at least some circumstances.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:59 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Khross wrote:
Except, the Court has changed since then.


A liberal vote replaced a liberal vote, no?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
This is a really interesting/exciting case for reasons that go beyond gun control too. From the Wiki link:

Wikipedia wrote:
In addition to claiming the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the selective incorporation process, McDonald is unique among post-Heller gun cases in that it is asking the court to overturn the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases. Slaughter-House determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). If overturned, the Selective Incorporation process would be moot and unnecessary, as the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would be applied against the states.

In attempting to overturn Slaughter-House, this case has garnered the attention and support of liberal legal scholars interested in its potential application in areas outside of firearms law. Their interest is that if Slaughter-House is overturned, it is possible that constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury in civil cases, right to a grand jury in felony cases, and other parts of the Bill of Rights, as well as future court rulings and existing federal precedent, not universally guaranteed in actions by the states, would be applied against the states automatically.


Even further, if the P&I Clause is significantly rehabilitated, the implications for all kinds of regulations could be huge. Basically, a libertarian's wet dream:

'libertarian activists behind McDonald openly explain that the reason they are pushing the Court to overrule Slaughter-House has nothing to do with guns. Instead, they want to advance a libertarian economic agenda, where federal judges could sit in judgment of state and local laws involving labor, employment, business regulations and other economic issues. Although the Constitution is silent on these matters, these activists want the courts to start declaring constitutional rights against such things, and using the power of the federal judiciary to strike down laws of this sort that the judges don’t like.'


I'd be very surprised if any modern Court, let alone this one, would go that far, but it's definitely going to be fun to watch!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:24 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
I was sure that this was going to be something about trans-fats when I clicked it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:39 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Khross wrote:
Except, the Court has changed since then.


That replacement is not likely to vote much differently than her predecessor did in the Heller case.

Of course this is a case involving incorporation which the Court as a whole has had a decidely mixed history with. Heller ruled directly on Federal property so may not exactly have the same opinions. In fact a strict Constitutionalist like Thomas may in fact rule that Chicago's ban be upheld as he may in fact be agaisnt the doctrine of incorporation itself.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Diamondeye wrote:
I was sure that this was going to be something about trans-fats when I clicked it.

I will have NO MOCKERY in this thread! I insist we reserve such tom-foolery to threads you... I mean, other threads.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:50 pm 
Offline
Too lazy for a picture

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 1352
So can the city of Chicago argue that the first and fourth amendments do not apply in the city limits?

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:56 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Taskiss wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I was sure that this was going to be something about trans-fats when I clicked it.

I will have NO MOCKERY in this thread! I insist we reserve such tom-foolery to threads you... I mean, other threads.


How about douchebaggery? Can we have that?

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:02 pm 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
Uncle Fester wrote:
So can the city of Chicago argue that the first and fourth amendments do not apply in the city limits?
Of course not. You can only argue that amendments don't apply when they're things liberals don't like.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:09 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Technically, under current juridical doctrine, Chicago can. The curious thing is that, technically, incorporation vacates the 10th Amendment and allows the Federal government to impose other Constitutional provisions onto the states.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:17 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Is Chicago not incorporated?

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:25 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Müs wrote:
Is Chicago not incorporated?



Is this a serious question?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:27 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Actually, yes. It is.

I know about this much -->||<-- about the city itself, and Khross' comments lead me to believe that they are not incorporated.

Things I know about Chicago:
It is in Illinois
It is on the shore of Lake Michigan
The Bears play there.
They have two equally shitty baseball teams
They filmed The Negotiator there
It is very windy

Aside from that... Yeah. That's about it.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:34 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Müs wrote:
Actually, yes. It is.

I know about this much -->||<-- about the city itself, and Khross' comments lead me to believe that they are not incorporated.

Things I know about Chicago:
It is in Illinois
It is on the shore of Lake Michigan
The Bears play there.
They have two equally shitty baseball teams
They filmed The Negotiator there
It is very windy

Aside from that... Yeah. That's about it.


I asked because incporation in this sense has nothing to do with .inc or corporation in a business sense.

It deals with a part of the Constitution's restrictions on the Federal Government applying to states or local government via being "incoporated" into the 14th ammendment as restrictions on the states and locals. For example the first amendment is incorporated in respect to political speech so no township or state can pass laws to restrict political speech. The second amendment is currently not incorporated which allows states and (a city in this specific case) to do so. If the second is incorporated it would render Chicago and Illinois incapable of restricting the second amendment rights of its citizens (just as the Federal is so restricted as ruled in Heller).

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:21 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Müs wrote:
Is Chicago not incorporated?


Yes, it is incorporated as a city. Like Elmo said, Khross is referring to a totally different meaning of "incorporation."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:23 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Rgr.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:59 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Since when do the Bears play in Chicago?

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:16 am 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
hEH, TRUE. wHAT THEY DO CAN BE MORE APTLY DESCRIBED AS SUCK. Bloody capslock. Bah!

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:54 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Müs wrote:
hEH, TRUE. wHAT THEY DO CAN BE MORE APTLY DESCRIBED AS SUCK. Bloody capslock. Bah!

I suppose there are worse things in life than being a Bears fan, for example you could be a Seahawks fan. Hehe.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:55 am 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Hopwin wrote:
Müs wrote:
hEH, TRUE. wHAT THEY DO CAN BE MORE APTLY DESCRIBED AS SUCK. Bloody capslock. Bah!

I suppose there are worse things in life than being a Bears fan, for example you could be a Seahawks fan. Hehe.


Or a Browns fan ;p

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Müs wrote:
Taskiss wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I was sure that this was going to be something about trans-fats when I clicked it.

I will have NO MOCKERY in this thread! I insist we reserve such tom-foolery to threads you... I mean, other threads.


How about douchebaggery? Can we have that?

Yes, but only after 6:00 PM on weekdays. Weekends, of course, are good too.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: McDonald v. Chicago
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:05 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Taskiss wrote:
Müs wrote:
Taskiss wrote:
I will have NO MOCKERY in this thread! I insist we reserve such tom-foolery to threads you... I mean, other threads.


How about douchebaggery? Can we have that?

Yes, but only after 6:00 PM on weekdays. Weekends, of course, are good too.


GMT?

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 208 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group