Forums - Politics Discussion - Victory for the Constitution... in Illinois?!

Today an United States Apellate Court struck down the illinois ban on carrying guns as UnConstitutional! 

Illnois has a long history of blatently violating the Constitution of the United States, especially when it comes to the second amemdment.

this is yet another victory for the 2nd amendment in recent years. After the Supreme court ruled DC outright gun ban was unconstitutional, Chicago was still unconvinced so in 2010 the SCOTUS ruled again the the hand gun ban was unconstitutional.

it is well know that illinois, and in particular Chicago has massive amounts of crime, murder, etc, and extremely restrictive gun laws.

So its nice that law abiding citizens will finally be able to defend themselves from criminals.

Unfortunately, as is the chicago way, their felons... er im mean politicians, will still do what ever the possibly can to keep the citizens from defending themselves from crime. they will likely fall in line with states like California, New York, New Jersey, etc that make it damn near impossible to obtain a conceal carry permit. though hopefully more court cases will strike down laws like that, and hopefully people understand what "shall not be infringed" means.

case in point:

Chicago Representative Currie said: "“If we need to change the law, let us at least craft a law that is very severely constrained and narrowly tailored so that we don’t invite guns out of control on each of our city’s streets,” Currie said. “I don’t want people out of control wandering the streets with guns that are out of control.”" My God! Does she not have any inkling of the idea that they are NOW ALREADY out of control?!?!?! Where is her head? (never mind - I KNOW where it is!"

from the chicago tribune:

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second

 Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside," the judges ruled. 

"The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden. "



Around the Network

I agree with this however I would like people carrying the guns to take a tests to decide whether or not they are mentally stable enough to do so.

So basically if you want to carry a gun, you need to pass tests and be cleared to do so.



Damn, those hippies are gonna be pissed

This is incredibly biased. Next time just state the ruling and outcome. If you care to put an opinion, do if afterwards and make clear it's your own.

"So its nice that law abiding citizens will finally be able to defend themselves from criminals."

"Unfortunately, as is the chicago way, their felons... er im mean politicians, will still do what ever the possibly can to keep the citizens from defending themselves from crime."

"The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense." Contradiction.

The US currently bans possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, for the sole reason that they can only be used to kill and injure people. Why does this not apply to guns (assuming the hunting and recreational practices get permits)?


--

Have you considered that maybe the constitution is wrong, outdated and needs to be changed? Is the only valid interpretation of that language that i) EVERYONE, in a militia or not, can bear arms and ii) absolutely no controls can be imposed in it?

If the studies are inconclusive then maybe do some more studies on it?



spaceguy said:
I agree with this however I would like people carrying the guns to take a tests to decide whether or not they are mentally stable enough to do so.

Which goes to show just how uncontroversial gun ownership has become in the US.

Wasn't a fan of the OP article...

what I find interesting is that I believe this is essentially saying "Get a concelaed carry law up and running within 180 days, or anybody can carry any gun, because the right to bear arms outside of the house is a right."

Which i actually think is a new ruling.  Before gun rights being restricted to home ownership in rulings.



Around the Network
Soleron said:

This is incredibly biased. Next time just state the ruling and outcome. If you care to put an opinion, do if afterwards and make clear it's your own.

"So its nice that law abiding citizens will finally be able to defend themselves from criminals."

"Unfortunately, as is the chicago way, their felons... er im mean politicians, will still do what ever the possibly can to keep the citizens from defending themselves from crime."

"The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense." Contradiction.

The US currently bans possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, for the sole reason that they can only be used to kill and injure people. Why does this not apply to guns (assuming the hunting and recreational practices get permits)?


--

Have you considered that maybe the constitution is wrong, outdated and needs to be changed? Is the only valid interpretation of that language that i) EVERYONE, in a militia or not, can bear arms and ii) absolutely no controls can be imposed in it?

If the studies are inconclusive then maybe do some more studies on it?

It's not worth starting this argument. Gun owners are heroes who defend us all from Zombie King George III. You, being brainwashed by the terrifying tyranny of the United Kingdom, wouldn't *get* it.



New Smash, New Mains

Korrasami is canon, bitches. Get hype!

Soleron said:

 

The US currently bans possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, for the sole reason that they can only be used to kill and injure people. Why does this not apply to guns (assuming the hunting and recreational practices get permits)?

Really? I thought they were banned because they were weapons of mass destruction and not instruments of self defense.



@Mr Khan

How much support would there be for a constitutional amendment fixing the language to say it's only OK with a permit?


badgenome said:
Soleron said:

 

The US currently bans possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, for the sole reason that they can only be used to kill and injure people. Why does this not apply to guns (assuming the hunting and recreational practices get permits)?

Really? I thought they were banned because they were weapons of mass destruction and not instruments of self defense.


What's the difference? One of those categories is purely offensive in nature, and the other one consists of warheads and the like.



I made a bet with JoeTheBro on February 19, 2014. I say the 3DS will outsell the PS4 at least one month in 2014, he says the 3DS won't. Whoever is right gets to control the other person's sig for a month.

Check out Ohga Shrugs!

Love and tolerate.

Around the Network
Player1x3 said:
Damn, those hippies are gonna be pissed


Yup, i was right