Chicago Gun Ban Challenged by Supreme Court...
I thought this was rather interesting. What might this mean for our city? I moved here form Minneapolis three years ago. A year before my move, Minneapolis had passed legislation allowing Conceal and Carry permits for registered hand gun owners. Some argue that similar laws decrease crime while others say it will increase. Local Minneapolis business owners reacted very thoughtfully by not allowing guns in their establishments sending a strong message of non-support for the bill. I would imagine that a similar reaction will occur here if a similar bill passes.
The original Chicago Gun Ban is being challenged because of the Second Amendment, however, a different type of regulation will surely replace the city wide ban. Most likely a bill similar to one in Minneapolis.
I am not a gun owner, nor do I wish to be at this time. If I were to own a gun I would keep it at a gun range in a gun locker. I would support a bill that allowed registered owners to carry a gun but only if it did not include a conceal clause. I feel that if you really feel the need to carry a gun you should have to advertise the fact openly. I feel that this would have a deeper impact on crime out of the possible options for a similar bill. I would prefer that guns did not exist and I feel strongly that Police should not carry guns either. Just curious about what others think and feel about this topic.
Here is an article in the New York Times:
Tags: Constitution, Guns, ban, violence
Views: 38
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by heather s on -
Guess we'll just have to disagree. I really don't think my stance is hypocritical. Can I not appreciate the Clean Water Act but think the Defense of Marriage Act was wrong? So why can't I appreciate the first Amendment but think we should reevaluate the second? You said yourself that the Constitution is a fluid document, and we all know that it was flawed from the beginning. It has been re-interpreted and changed plenty of times.
Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Even if it were to come up, re-interpreting one amendment of the Constitution is not going to lead to taking ALL of our rights away. Chicago had a handgun ban for a long time, and our other Constitutional rights were not affected by that, as far as I know.
notoriousDUG said:Here is why:
If you want rights you feel are important protected by a document you have to be willing to allow it to protect rights you do not agree with.
Once you start picking and choosing the parts of something you want to protect and adhere to you have started down the slippery slope that takes ALL of our rights away.
heather stratton said:"It is hypocritical to care about and adhere to one part of a document because it stands for what you believe and ignore another because you disagree with it."
I don't see why. There are other laws I disagree with. Why should I pretend that the Constitution is perfect or above criticism?
-
Permalink Reply by Davo on -
To paraphrase George Carlin: We don't have rights we have privileges
Also I find irony in (and I generalize) That most people that support the "right to bear arms" are also the ones who strongly dislike the overstretching hand of big Government.
This supreme court ruling basicly took the "right" from local governments to determine for themselves how to handle this touchy issue by imposing Federal Law.
Now I agree that the gun ban did little to combat violence (cuz criminals will do criminal things)
I just think that people localy should be able to decide their fate.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on -
Heather, you're conflating two completely different principles in your statement. The Constitution is not comparable to the Clean Water Act, the Defense of Marriage Act or any other legislation you can name, but it is rather the litmus for whether or not said legislation is in violation of our fundamental rights. Many people seem to be confused about this, not just yourself.
heather stratton said:Guess we'll just have to disagree. I really don't think my stance is hypocritical. Can I not appreciate the Clean Water Act but think the Defense of Marriage Act was wrong? So why can't I appreciate the first Amendment but think we should reevaluate the second? You said yourself that the Constitution is a fluid document, and we all know that it was flawed from the beginning. It has been re-interpreted and changed plenty of times.
Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Even if it were to come up, re-interpreting one amendment of the Constitution is not going to lead to taking ALL of our rights away. Chicago had a handgun ban for a long time, and our other Constitutional rights were not affected by that, as far as I know.
notoriousDUG said:Here is why:
If you want rights you feel are important protected by a document you have to be willing to allow it to protect rights you do not agree with.
Once you start picking and choosing the parts of something you want to protect and adhere to you have started down the slippery slope that takes ALL of our rights away.
heather stratton said:"It is hypocritical to care about and adhere to one part of a document because it stands for what you believe and ignore another because you disagree with it."
I don't see why. There are other laws I disagree with. Why should I pretend that the Constitution is perfect or above criticism?
-
Permalink Reply by Craig S. on -
How can I hold a cocktail if I'm holding a pistol with two hands?
iggi said:
-
Permalink Reply by Davo on
-
Cammel pack
Craig S. said:How can I hold a cocktail if I'm holding a pistol with two hands?
iggi said:
-
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on -
I was going to suggest a 'cocktail hat'. It's like a beer hat, but for mixed drinks.
But then, a Camelbak will hold a lot more liquid courage. I guess a Camelbak would make you more courageous in this situation.
Davo said:Cammel pack
Craig S. said:How can I hold a cocktail if I'm holding a pistol with two hands?
iggi said:
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on
-
Permalink Reply by notoriousDUG on -
Thank you for phrasing that better than I could.
This is pretty much my point, or at least it explains the basis of my point...
The constitution is what is used as the measuring stick to determine if our rights are being trampled by our laws or not; think of it as the standard by which all laws are judged against in order to determine if they are, well, legal.
If you want it's protection of a law you agree with you have to adhere to it's protection, or in of those you don't. The same applies to it overturning those you dislike and those you like; if you want one you have to accept the other.
Michael Perz said:Heather, you're conflating two completely different principles in your statement. The Constitution is not comparable to the Clean Water Act, the Defense of Marriage Act or any other legislation you can name, but it is rather the litmus for whether or not said legislation is in violation of our fundamental rights. Many people seem to be confused about this, not just yourself.
heather stratton said:Guess we'll just have to disagree. I really don't think my stance is hypocritical. Can I not appreciate the Clean Water Act but think the Defense of Marriage Act was wrong? So why can't I appreciate the first Amendment but think we should reevaluate the second? You said yourself that the Constitution is a fluid document, and we all know that it was flawed from the beginning. It has been re-interpreted and changed plenty of times.
Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Even if it were to come up, re-interpreting one amendment of the Constitution is not going to lead to taking ALL of our rights away. Chicago had a handgun ban for a long time, and our other Constitutional rights were not affected by that, as far as I know.
notoriousDUG said:Here is why:
If you want rights you feel are important protected by a document you have to be willing to allow it to protect rights you do not agree with.
Once you start picking and choosing the parts of something you want to protect and adhere to you have started down the slippery slope that takes ALL of our rights away.
heather stratton said:"It is hypocritical to care about and adhere to one part of a document because it stands for what you believe and ignore another because you disagree with it."
I don't see why. There are other laws I disagree with. Why should I pretend that the Constitution is perfect or above criticism?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on
-
Dug, I have no doubt that you understand. I hope others do as well.
Anyway, here's a PDF of the SCOTUS' opinion for anybody that wants to nerd out for a bit.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin C on -
And here's the New Chicago Gun Ordinance rushed through City Council today to make sure that handguns stay where they belong-in the hands of criminals.
Michael Perz said:Dug, I have no doubt that you understand. I hope others do as well.
Anyway, here's a PDF of the SCOTUS' opinion for anybody that wants to nerd out for a bit. - Attachments:
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
© 2008-2013 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C. Julie Hochstadter, Director
Powered by
