Today is a great day for liberty in America.
For this case, though, it is completely irrelevant that most states have that right. It’s a case under the federal constitution and therefore what the Illinois constitution says isn’t important. Had the case gone the other way, it would not have impacted the ability to make a claim that the Chicago law violated the Illinois constitution. Now it is ruled this way, it is irrelevant what the Illinois constitution had to say on laws such as Chicago’s.
I think the majority of the population of Mass. would like to see stricter restrictions on guns. As has been said, though, it’s moot. The Supreme Court ruled the way it ruled. The bad guys have won.
I know this. What my post was saying is, it’s ridiculous that it took until 2010 for the country to realize what has always been so: The right to bear arms is an individual right.
People who insist we obey the Constitution, the supreme law of our land, are “bad guys”?
Thank you. This is a fantastic example of the mind set of the left.
Politicans pander to what thir consituents want, they don’t push “pet causes” in the face of opposition. The assumption that the populations of those states don’t WANT those restrictions is extremely mistaken.
People want them especially in the most urban areas (New York, DC, Chicago) because they are victimized by gun crime. There is a great difference in the perception of guns between those who live in urban and rural areas. If you regularly hear gun shots outside your window at night, you tend to become a little less libertarian on the issue.
You can argue with those people all you want, but that’s not the point. The point is that those populations are forcing the attempts at gun restrictions on their politicians, the pols aren’t pushing them on the people.
…which is essentially the same thing folks on the Right say when an anti flag burning law is declared un-Constitutional.
Too goddamn bad about your ox.
Really? these policies have existed for well over 30 years (in New York City’s case, nearly 100). Are you asserting that the people in these cities are substantially the same as the population that existed when the laws were passed? Population turnover, urban flight, and basic demographics should tell you that they are not. Yet they believe exactly the same things as their predecessors?
There have been two major decisions now (Heller and McDonald) that clearly disprove that. These people have been stuck with those laws for years, and the evidence suggests that they are not even remotely in lockstep with them.
Yes, really. The attitudes haven’t changed. You can tell by who they elect. The Supreme Court decisions don’t have anything to do with the popular opinion of the regions in question.
Right. It makes total sense. I voted for Obama, therefore I support gun-control initiatives because that was one of his policy platforms.
As I said upthread:
But there’s no possibility that people like me exist anywhere else in the United States. Except for Dick Heller and Otis McDonald and the myriad of others that actually do exist.
Nor should they. Constitutional rights are to be immune to the whim of the electorate whether it’s 1787, 2010, 0r 3054.
You would think that people being “victimized by gun crime” in cities where guns have been against the law for 75 years would welcome some sort of change in the approach to gun crime…
But in any case, we all know that New York is one of the safest large cities on the planet, so this example doesn’t make much sense. That leads into a reminder that any state-by-state, country-by-country, or longitudinal comparison shows that gun laws and gun ownership rates have absolutely no relationship whatsoever to overall crime rates or murder rates, and that the whole idea that gun politics involves balancing a liberty interest with a safety interest is a falsehood. The only issue in gun laws is whether we’re going to follow the Constitution and whether we’re going to allow average citizens the same rights as the police (who, statistically, tend to shoot the wrong person well over twice as often as non-police even normalizing for the baseline number of incidents). The issue is purely one of whether freedom is good or freedom is bad, because there’s no crime or safety component to this when you actually read the data. That’s why gun rights opponents are evil–their ONLY motivation is disliking the idea of ordinary people having the same privileges as cops and other criminals.
Now we will go down the same path as started by Roe v Wade - decades of court battle to find out just what regulations will be permitted. Roe V Wade found the right to privacy/abortion, yet we still have states dealing with partial birth bans, notification laws, parental consent, etc.
So, at the anti-gun extreme I expect the following to pass muster:
Firearms licenses can be required, with annual review of skills. They will have to be possible to get (I expect some lawsuits when someone can’t schedule an exam in a “reasonable” time).
Firearms registration: All serial numbers, a single round fired and file with the cops for ballistics (useless, but it will happen somewhere), microstamping eventually.
Purchase limitations per month: Not sure if this will make it.
Storage requirements: Trigger locks and safes must be owned?
Ammunition tracking: Not sure on this one.
How far can they regulate before the Supremes will decide it is too far?
Well, it’s essentially the same thing anyone says when the Supreme Court rules the the way they don’t like. I’m sure that if the court had ruled in this case that Chicago’s gun laws were constitutional, the people in this thread who are praising the decision would say how the Court got it wrong.
The rulings of the Supreme Court tell us how the Constitution and law is to be interpreted. It doesn’t obligate me, though, to believe that those rulings are necessarily wise, or good public policy, or the way that I believe the Constitution and law should be interpreted.
As I read this discussion, I am saddened because two local (Tampa) police officers were shot in the head and killed by an asshole with a handgun. Both were trained professionals. Both, I assume, were armed. Both left behind widows, one who is nine months pregnant with a child that will never meet his/her father, the other who left behind four children who will sorely miss theirs.
This is part of the cost of your liberty in America. Would hand gun restrictions have saved these officers? Probably not. Would a hand gun ban have saved them? Possibly.
Personally I’d like to see fewer hand guns in the world; Ideally none. Anyway, I understand your point, but I’m not feeling like it’s a great day for liberty here.
Uh, you better check your sourcing. It’s illegal to shoot someone in the head, so of course it never happens.
Ever heard of a rifle?
Well, except in the majority of the country it has been an individual right. And it is hard to blame SCOTUS for not realizing it earlier when there hasn’t been a case or controversy to decide on it. And the reason for that is the pro-gun rights lobby has not chosen to bring a case, because it thought (probably rightly, but we don’t know) that it would lose.
Yes, have you ever seen one?
Oh come on. It’s not like the SC ruled that people have a boundless libertarian immunity from government authority over firearms. This ruling simply upholds that the right of law-abiding responsible citizens- the ones least likely to abuse firearms- to own and carry the means of self-defense is a right, not a privilege that the government can grant or withhold at will. As Una said upthread, there will almost certainly still be licensing requirements, registration, background checks, waiting periods, etc.
The “gun bans are the will of the people” claim is pretty shaky. For one thing there’s the simple principle that it is much easier to ban something than to overturn a ban. Governments automatically accrue authority and only reluctantly ever cede it again. Four decades of efforts to decriminalize marijuana are a perfect example.