Suit filed against new Chicago gun laws

[Cougfan2]

Well, it didn't take long for a suit to be filed to overturn Chicago's new gun laws. Let the games begin.......AGAIN!

CHICAGO (AP) — A federal lawsuit has been filed against the city of Chicago asking the city's new gun control ordinance be declared "null and void."

A group of people, including the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, filed the lawsuit Tuesday, saying the new ordinance infringes on their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs want the city prohibited from enforcing the new measure.

Chicago aldermen passed the ordinance Friday, four days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Americans have the right to have handguns anywhere for self-defense. That ruling makes the city's 28-year-old ban on such weapons unenforceable.

The new ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun.

Read More

 

[DERGLOCKINMEISTER]

So ... by virtue of this new law- unless the gun were to magically appear in your home with no contact by anyone - any attempt to bring the new gun home would by definition make you guilty of breaking the law .

 

[Cougfan2]

So ... by virtue of this new law- unless the gun were to magically appear in your home with no contact by anyone - any attempt to bring the new gun home would by definition make you guilty of breaking the law .

EXACTLY!!! Unless the Federation beams it into your gun safe along with all of your disabled guns. Unfreakin' believable, but this is no surprise.

I have become convinced that Daley is mentally unstable, much like like the Sullivan Law that Timothy Sullivan, who was extremely paranoid, got passed when he was a member of the Tamany Hall political machine in New York.

 

[Trlsmn]

So ... by virtue of this new law- unless the gun were to magically appear in your home with no contact by anyone - any attempt to bring the new gun home would by definition make you guilty of breaking the law .

I was thinking the same thing. Then they will probably want you to register it at the police station and arrest you for breaking the law when you bring it in to register. These kind of people aren't Americans and don't believe in American ideals. Wasn't Obama from Chicago?

 

[CEF1959]

Not sure why the fact that Obama lived in Chicago for a while is relevant here, but hey, a guy's gotta roll with his obsessions I guess.

It's going to be an interesting next few years. These cases are going to pop up like mushrooms all over the country. When the SCOTUS decided the McDonald case, it didn't just strike down the Chicago ban, it declared personal gun ownership to be a "fundamental right." The Court didn't have to do that to decide the case, but it did. And when something is a fundamental right, the level of scrutiny for regulating that right is very high. I think we're likely to see lots of litigation and lots of local gun restrictions struck down. Chicago, New York, and California are on the hot seat, but I think it'll go further than those obvious cases. Local bans on open carry, for example, may be vulnerable.

 

[longcolt]

Not all that relevant but it is interesting that as a Politician in IL and the US Congress Obama always was on the anti-gun side of legislation.

Weapons in the hands of citizens do not fit into his form of political control. He is tight with Daley and the former Gov even though he claims otherwise.

 

[ZachS]

Local bans on open carry, for example, may be vulnerable.

My guess is that they'll be about as vulnerable as noise ordinances or local laws requiring permits for parades are.

 

[Trlsmn]

Not sure why the fact that Obama lived in Chicago for a while is relevant here, but hey, a guy's gotta roll with his obsessions I guess.

Lived in Chicago? Way to minimize this, the guy was part of the Chicago political machine from 1985 to 2008, a machine that is anti-gun as well as one of the most corrupt in the country.

It's going to be an interesting next few years. These cases are going to pop up like mushrooms all over the country. When the SCOTUS decided the McDonald case, it didn't just strike down the Chicago ban, it declared personal gun ownership to be a "fundamental right." The Court didn't have to do that to decide the case, but it did. And when something is a fundamental right, the level of scrutiny for regulating that right is very high. I think we're likely to see lots of litigation and lots of local gun restrictions struck down. Chicago, New York, and California are on the hot seat, but I think it'll go further than those obvious cases. Local bans on open carry, for example, may be vulnerable.

The only thing keeping this positive 2nd amendment ball rolling is the conservative balance of power in the Supreme court, if a conservative Justice was to die, step down etc.. Obama will appoint a radical and you can say goodbye to every 2nd amendment case that crosses the desk of SCOTUS. Think about that! One Justice stands between 2nd amendment gains and second amendment loses, that is a scary though!

 

[Karma]

My guess is that they'll be about as vulnerable as noise ordinances or local laws requiring permits for parades are.

Maybe. Didn't see parades in the Bill of Rights though.

 

[Mac_Fan]

Go get 'em guys!

 

[gunnoob75]

Maybe. Didn't see parades in the Bill of Rights though.

 

[JimmyS1985]

Lived in Chicago? Way to minimize this, the guy was part of the Chicago political machine from 1985 to 2008, a machine that is anti-gun as well as one of the most corrupt in the country.





The only thing keeping this positive 2nd amendment ball rolling is the conservative balance of power in the Supreme court, if a conservative Justice was to die, step down etc.. Obama will appoint a radical and you can say goodbye to every 2nd amendment case that crosses the desk of SCOTUS. Think about that! One Justice stands between 2nd amendment gains and second amendment loses, that is a scary though!

Yea, but I dont really care for the conservative justices pro-forced childbirth stance in abortion related cases compared to the liberal justices. I dont know how Roe V Wade is not overturned yet with this many conservatives on the bench but they infringe on those fundamental rights every chance they get. From my point of view, they are the one that are activist judges on other issues., except on guns, I generally agree with the liberals A LOT more often which is why Im not a single issue voter when it comes to guns.

I also did not care for the way they voted on campaign finance, how corporations can donate as much as they want without any limitations because their an entity that has the same rights as a US citizen. Instead of having senators who are representing the people of Wyoming, Oregon or MIssouri, we will have ones representing BP, those annoying Cialis ads or some other various corporations since private citizens can not come close to matching the donations of a corporation.

The politicians can now wear nascar jackets with all their corporations logos.

 

[Karma]

Yea, but I dont really care for the conservative justices pro-forced childbirth stance in abortion related cases compared to the liberal justices. I dont know how Roe V Wade is not overturned yet with this many conservatives on the bench but they infringe on those fundamental rights every chance they get. From my point of view, they are the one that are activist judges on other issues., except on guns, I generally agree with the liberals A LOT more often which is why Im not a single issue voter when it comes to guns.

I also did not care for the way they voted on campaign finance, how corporations can donate as much as they want without any limitations because their an entity that has the same rights as a US citizen. Instead of having senators who are representing the people of Wyoming, Oregon or MIssouri, we will have ones representing BP, those annoying Cialis ads or some other various corporations since private citizens can not come close to matching the donations of a corporation.

The politicians can now wear nascar jackets with all their corporations logos.

How about unions? Unions were allowed to funnel money into campaigns while corporations were not. The reason that never seems to come up with liberals, is because almost all of the money went to Democrats.

Again with abortion dude? Really?

 

[ZachS]

Maybe. Didn't see parades in the Bill of Rights though.

You may have missed it, it's right in the beginning:

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Constitutionally, it doesn't matter whether a parade's for fun or for petitioning the government for "a redress of grievances" any more than it matters whether a gun's used for recreation or for defense. My point is that regulations of fundamental rights free speech and assembly are routinely upheld by local laws, and it's perfectly letal.

Most fundamental rights, in fact, (except for the right to be free from racial discrimination) are subject to a surprising amount of regulation. Even under Heller and McDonald, gun rights will be no different.

Not saying that's a good thing, just that it's likely to happen.

 

[Trlsmn]

Yea, but I dont really care for the conservative justices pro-forced childbirth stance in abortion related cases compared to the liberal justices.

WTH? have you even looked at the Supreme court rulings since Roe V Wade on abortion? Stop having things told to you and start doing your own research!

Look past the propaganda and look at the actual facts!

Look up the Concurring and Dissenting Justices on all these cases on the Wikis for all these SCOTUS decisions and you will see even the conservative Justice balance is on the side of Pro-abortion.


Supreme Court's Evolving Rulings on Abortion : NPR

1973: 'Roe v. Wade'
The Roe decision divided a woman's pregnancy into three thirteen-week periods, or trimesters. In the first trimester, the court ruled that women need only consult with their physician before undergoing an abortion. In the second, states were given the right to regulate abortions only to ensure the woman's health, such as requiring that the procedure be performed in a hospital rather than a clinic. After that period, the court noted that the fetus is considered medically "viable" — able to live outside the woman's womb, with or without life support.

1976: 'Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth'

Filed on behalf of two physicians who oversaw abortions in Missouri, this case struck down state laws requiring the consent of spouses and parents (of patients under the age of 18) before an abortion procedure. The court ruled the Missouri laws unconstitutional because they "delegated to third parties an absolute veto power which the state does not itself possess."

1976 and 1979: 'Bellotti v. Baird'

Argued twice and ruled on after its 1979 hearing, this case involved a Massachusetts law that required minor girls seeking an abortion to first obtain the consent of their parents, or a court order waiving that consent. The court's 8-to-1 decision in 1979 affirmed its previous ruling in Danforth, invalidating all state laws that require all minor girls get obtain their parents' consent before getting an abortion. It gave states latitude to establish procedures to determine whether a girl is mature enough to make the decision. But it held that a pregnant minor is "entitled in such a proceeding to show either that she is mature enough and well enough informed to make her abortion decision, in consultation with her physician, independently of her parents' wishes," or that the abortion would be in her "best interest."

1977 – 1980: 'Maher v. Roe,' 'Beal v. Doe,' 'Poelker v. Doe' and 'Harris v. McRae'

These cases (the first three decided on the same day) all addressed the issue of public funding for abortion. After the Roe decision, the issue became increasingly heated amid Republican Congressional efforts to pass a federal law prohibiting the use of Medicaid funds for abortions. Similar efforts were also made in state legislatures, which passed abortion funding limits first. Those were the first to be challenged. Among them was Maher, in which a group of indigent women claimed their due process rights were violated by a Connecticut law that limited Medicaid funding for abortions only to those deemed "medically necessary." The court said its decision marked "no retreat" from Roe. But it nonetheless backed the state restrictions on the grounds that they simply encourage — rather than force — childbirth over abortion, and therefore didn't undermine the women's constitutional rights.


1983: 'City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health' and 'Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft'

In Akron, the court struck down a City of Akron, Ohio, ordinance that included a requirement that girls under the age of 15 obtain their parents' written consent at least 24 hours before the procedure. In its 6-to-3 decision, the court reaffirmed lower court rulings that allowed girls whose parents vetoed their abortion requests to demonstrate that they are sufficiently "mature" to make the decision themselves. Because the Akron ordinance didn't include such provisions, the court ruled that it unjustifiably "placed a significant obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion." The court's decision also invalidated restrictions that abortions after the first trimester be performed in a hospital, that doctors first deliver a state-sanctioned speech and that fetal remains be disposed of in a "humane" way.

Decided on the same day, the court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft struck down a Missouri state law requiring that abortions performed during the second trimester be performed in a hospital. But it upheld the law's provisions that minor girls obtain permission from either their parents or a judge, based on the fact that it included provisions that allowed the girl to "demonstrate that she is sufficiently mature to make the abortion decision herself or that, despite her immaturity, an abortion would be in her best interests."

1986: 'Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists'

In this 5-to-4 decision, the court struck down a Pennsylvania law that, among other things, required women to hear a state-scripted speech designed to deter them from having an abortion. Such speeches, along with literature warning of the risks of abortion, were popular among many state legislators looking for ways to limit abortions. But in his majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that "the States are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies." He further noted that the Pennsylvania speech was "nothing less than an attempt to wedge the State's message discouraging abortion into the privacy of the informed-consent dialogue between the woman and her physician."

1989: 'Webster v. Reproductive Health Services'

In Webster, the court upheld a Missouri state ban on the use of public employees and facilities for performing abortions — effectively reversing course and demonstrating that Roe wasn't necessarily "settled law" that confined future revisions. The 5-to-4 vote found that Missouri law was in keeping with past rulings, such as McRae, which held that the "state need not commit any resources to facilitating abortions." Three of those in the court's majority — Rehnquist, White and Kennedy — recommended revisiting the Roe decision, while Justice Antonin Scalia even suggested that the court overturn Roe. Speaking for the minority, Justice Blackmun wrote that the ruling made clear that "a chill wind blows" for those who support Roe.

1991: 'Rust v. Sullivan'

In another blow to abortion-rights advocates, the court upheld a federal regulation barring abortion counseling and referrals in family planning clinics that receive federal funding. Known as the "gag rule," the rule was created by the Reagan administration and opposed by many in Congress, though critics were never able to muster the votes to overturn the regulations. In its 5-to-4 decision, the court ruled that the federal government was within its right to ban those who receive federal funds under the Title X of the Public Health Service Act from doing anything to "encourage, promote or advocate abortion as a method of family planning."

1992: 'Planned Parenthood v. Casey'

In another 5-to-4 vote, the court upheld all but one provision of Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act, which among other things required: abortion patients in their first trimester of pregnancy to receive an "informed consent" booklet and wait 24 hours before receiving an abortion; and for minor girls to receive written consent from at least one parent. Although the court had struck down similar provisions in recent rulings, specifically Thornburgh and Akron, it now reasoned that only restrictions that imposed an "undue burden" on the pregnant woman would be invalidated. Using the new criteria, the court decided the threshold was breached only a by a provision that required a married woman to notify her husband before undergoing an abortion.


2000: 'Stenberg v. Carhart'

In this 5-to-4 decision, the court struck down a Nebraska law banning so-called partial-birth abortions. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer found that the sweeping ban failed to include an exception for cases in which the woman's health was at risk and amounted to an "undue burden" for the pregnant woman.


Look up the Concurring and Dissenting Justices on all these cases and you Even the conservative Justice balance is on the side of Pro-abortion.

I dont know how Roe V Wade is not overturned yet with this many conservatives on the bench but they infringe on those fundamental rights every chance they get. From my point of view, they are the one that are activist judges on other issues., except on guns, I generally agree with the liberals A LOT more often which is why Im not a single issue voter when it comes to guns.

Look up the SCOTUS abortion cases in the past 10 years and come back and tell me again that abortion will is at risk of being banned

I also did not care for the way they voted on campaign finance, how corporations can donate as much as they want without any limitations because their an entity that has the same rights as a US citizen. Instead of having senators who are representing the people of Wyoming, Oregon or MIssouri, we will have ones representing BP, those annoying Cialis ads or some other various corporations since private citizens can not come close to matching the donations of a corporation.

The politicians can now wear nascar jackets with all their corporations logos.

Neither the Democrats or the Republican are our friends! The only difference between the two is who they pander to, to get elected!

 

[Karma]

Neither the Democrats or the Republican are our friends! The only difference between the two is who they pander to, to get elected!

That is pretty damn accurate.

 

[ZachS]

Only reason Im a member of this forum that is based on a region of the united states that is 800 miles from my locality, is the other gun forum Im a member of wants to kick me off for not being completely right wing in my view points on other issues.

Nobody here cares what your viewpoint is on abortion. If you asked around here, you'd find a lot of members who are pro-choice, a lot more who are pro-life, and plenty who wouldn't pigeonhole themselves into either category. More discussion on the subject would not change anybody's mind, but it would piss off and alienate members, including some who contribute a lot to the board. That's why we don't discuss it.


Please remind yourself that this is a gun board. If you're really serious about not wanting to be harassed about your views on a non-gun related issue, you should discuss it somewhere else. There's a rule here about political discussion being limited to firearms-related issues. It's enforced with a light hand (as most forum rules should be), but we do our best to stick to it. As you've found out, gun boards are better when they have a wide range of viewpoints. Avoiding contentious topics is how we keep ours better.


Ask yourself whether you'd go into a party or bar full of strangers and continuously bring up abortion, even if people let you know they weren't interested. What you're doing here amounts to the same thing, and I know that I'm not the only member here who doesn't welcome it.


(If it matters to you, I'm staunchly pro-choice.)

 

[JimmyS1985]

Yea, I just have strong views on the subject which is why I inject it into every discussion. My BUmper sticker on my car say "Its a Choice Not a Child"

I always wondered, if 6.7 billion people on the planet isnt enough to make abortion a valid choice, how many people on the planet would make it valid? When are we officially overpopulated?

 

[ZachS]

Yea, I just have strong views on the subject which is why I inject it into every discussion. My BUmper sticker on my car say "Its a Choice Not a Child"

I always wondered, if 6.7 billion people on the planet isnt enough to make abortion a valid choice, how many people on the planet would make it valid? When are we officially overpopulated?

Most of us have strong views on this subject, and many others that we've agreed not to talk about here for the sake of keeping our discussions from becoming any more contentious than they already are. Please re-read my post above. There are appropriate forums (traditional and internet) for having no-holds-barred discussions about controversial issues. This is not one of them.

 

[Stomper]

Well put Trlsmn, and ZachS!!