close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

McDonald vs. City of Chicago, March 2, 2010

Discussion in 'Illinois Glockers' Club' started by MakeMineA10mm, Mar 1, 2010.


  1. MakeMineA10mm

    MakeMineA10mm
    Expand Collapse
    * * * *
    Millennium Member Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 1999
    1,955
    4
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    Thought I'd share some excellent links/articles that I've been given or run across myself. First is a very detailed (and long) article about the case and the people involved. It's really informative:

    Next is an interesting story quoting Mayor Daley. Of course, to him, a near-total handgun ban is just "reasonable gun-control."

    Last is a short blog entry by a guy who boils down the gun-control debate very logically and without a lot of political hoopla, or typical emotional arguments that seem to come out of Chicago newspapers. And, I absolutely LOVE the title!!! (Probably not the only thing Daley fires blanks out of! LOL!! :rofl: )

     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Dalton Wayne

    Dalton Wayne
    Expand Collapse
    Epic mustache
    Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 1999
    12,633
    7
    Location:
    Central Florida
    How long before they make a decision?
    Regards
    DW
     

  3. MakeMineA10mm

    MakeMineA10mm
    Expand Collapse
    * * * *
    Millennium Member Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 1999
    1,955
    4
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    They're guessing a ruling could be handed down in about June. I've seen it go as long as 9 months or more, but I think with the precedence/attitude of the Court right now, it will be a quick decision as they'll look at it as just a follow-up to the Heller (D.C.) case.
     
  4. 05FLHT

    05FLHT
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    195
    0
    Location:
    NW Illinois
    Not soon enough.
     
  5. Atomic Punk

    Atomic Punk
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    3,223
    260
    now what might it mean if they rule against us?
     
  6. MakeMineA10mm

    MakeMineA10mm
    Expand Collapse
    * * * *
    Millennium Member Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 1999
    1,955
    4
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    I don't even want to ponder the possibility. The SCOTUS in power right now has already ruled in favor of our side on an extremely similar case (Heller vs. D.C.), and the only real difference between the cases seems to be whether the SCOTUS will give more weight to a state/city ordinance due to a state's rights issue. HOWEVER, I believe they will still rule in our favor, because individual rights trump state's rights, unless there is a compelling public need for restriction. And what the ruling in Heller said is that D.C. could still regulate ownership, but not outright ban it. (D.C. has since enacted a registration and licensing scheme, but there's no more ban, and the new scheme seems pretty permissive.)

    If we lose, on a local level, we are at least facing:

    1) Mayor Daley running around feeling even more empowered and probably trying to use the victory as some sort of leverage to enact a new gun ban, and

    2) Madigan being able to tell the legislature that the gun-grabbers are in the right, as affirmed by SCOTUS, so state-wide registration/ban could be on the way.

    On a national level, this case (McDonald) was chosen as the lead case to get a Heller-like decision applied to the states (not just federal jurisdiction, which was the limitation of Heller). I think this was done here in Chicago, because the ban fits the model that the SCOTUS has already overturned, but also because the graft, corruption, scandal, and nepotism is on a grand and epic scale (in size and length of time) here in Chicago, so the SCOTUS, even though they only rule on the law and it's fit with the Constitution, can't help but have that in the back of their minds, hopefully making the decision easier for them.

    If SCOTUS rules against us, the national implication will be cities/states empowered to "regulate" handguns, and possibly other kinds of guns more heavily.

    But, again, I think this will be a fairly easy win.
     
  7. automan

    automan
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    434
    0
    Location:
    NVA
    Chicago's murder rate soared when Daley had the couple of large public housing projects that contained rival drug gangs shut down and residents moved to differnet parts of the city. Then the druggies formed their smaller rival gangs and the crime and murder rates started going up. Blame Daley and his pols. Guns had nothing to do with it. Daley wanted gun laws enacted in hopes it would stop something he had unleashed:wow:.
     
    #7 automan, Mar 2, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2010
  8. 05FLHT

    05FLHT
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    195
    0
    Location:
    NW Illinois
    I'm reposting what I have at Illinoiscary.com.

    It looks like Feldman really shot Chicago in the foot. Who's side was he on?

    Starting with

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: But would self-defense be part of liberty under the due -- substantive meaning of the Due Process Clause?

    MR. FELDMAN: I mean, if by that is, do you have a substantive right to self-defense, the Court actually has never answered that question, but I am willing to accept that there is such a right.

    Feldman goes on with -

    MR. FELDMAN: Yes, and -- and what I say about the right to self-defense is, if -- if the challenge -- if a State or local government banned all firearms it might raise the question of, given that there -- if there is a constitutional right to self-defense, has the State prohibited you from reasonable means of exercising that right?

    Using that standard on the right to "keep" arms shuts down Chicago's argument, using it on "bear" arms creates a problem for Illinois banning concealed and open carry.

    I love the part Feldman goes head to head with Justice Roberts about picking, choosing and perhaps modifying amendments - Makes me think of the line from Big Trouble In Little China, "It's like a Chinese buffet, we pick out what we want and leave the rest."

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I'm trying to get you to take not only pick and choose among which amendments are part of our abstract notion of ordered liberty, or if you want us also to take amendments that might be in and refine them and shave them off a little bit and say well, this part of the amendment is in, and this part isn't.

    MR. FELDMAN: No, that's not the argument that we are making.

    MR. FELDMAN: I think that -- I think that argument is that it's out, for this reason: framers -
    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, I -- I know your
    MR. FELDMAN: Okay.

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I'm trying to get a position on whether or not you want us to
    MR. FELDMAN: No, that's not the argument making.
    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay. So your all in or all out.

    MR. FELDMAN: The argument we're making - Yes.

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay.

    This last part, I got the biggest kick out of. Could Justice Scalia be talking about our very own, "Subject to the Police Powers?"

    JUSTICE SCALIA: What's the purpose of a State constitutional guarantee which has at the end of it "subject to such regulation as the legislature may proscribe," if that regulation includes banning it entirely? That -- that would make a nullity of the constitutional requirement.

    MR. FELDMAN: No, what I'm saying -- I'm
    sorry. What I'm saying is that the right that is embodied in the wide variety of different State constitutions, the overwhelming consensus is that what the States have determined as a result of their own processes and in light of their own conditions is that you can't ban all kinds of firearms, but you can ban some kinds of firearms.

    JUSTICE SCALIA: That's fine.


    I am hoping we can assume from this, that just like the right to "keep" arms, you cannot entirely ban the bearing of arms.

    Full Transcript here - http://supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf
     
  9. volsbear

    volsbear
    Expand Collapse
    IWannaBeSedated
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    11,457
    43
    Location:
    Illinois
    Feldman wasn't strong at all. Justice Breyer was throwing him hanging curve balls that were ripe to hit out of the park, but Feldman struck out looking.

    2A will be incorporated, though on a narrow basis as most decisions tend to be. This will do nothing for CCW in Illinois in the immediate future but it will lay groundwork for the future (as Heller did for today's argument).
     
  10. 05FLHT

    05FLHT
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    195
    0
    Location:
    NW Illinois
    You are correct, a successful incorporation of the Second Amendment via McDonald vs. Chicago will not, in of its self, allow for CCW in Illinois. On the contrary, the Justices stated several times that concealed carry could necessarily be regulated (read banned). However, applying their reasoning for the application of the right, it would be an unconstitutional infringement if the total aspect of the right was nullified through legislation.

    The way I read this, if the Second is incorporated, Illinois will need to legislate for concealed carry or come to terms that open carry will be the minimum allowed.

    Please understand I am not saying this will happen just because of incorporation via McDonald, because I am not. McDonald alone will not give Illinois CCW or open carry. Additional challenges will need to be filed.
     
  11. volsbear

    volsbear
    Expand Collapse
    IWannaBeSedated
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    11,457
    43
    Location:
    Illinois
    I agree. The meat and potatoes of McDonald's usefulness in future challenges won't be seen until the opinion is available in (hopefully) June.