Comments on: 2nd Amendment court battle – Chicago case to be round two

By: Lazybum

Lazybum — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:19:26 +0000

Wait- As I interpret the Chicago Way concerning gun laws, it is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but you can't buy them. Since few people are giving them away, one could infer that to enjoy the right you would have to steal them. Are they saying that a non-felon with a stolen or "found" firearm is ok but an honest citizen who purchases on is not ok?

I am not getting it.

By: PatRiot

PatRiot — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:05:57 +0000

- Let's cut to the chase. Rights that we were born with (some say God given) are not subject to legislation, unless to ensure their protection, hence, the Constitution.

- These rights belong to each individual and have no boundaries.

- The Constitution establishes other rights and gives us the tools to keep Government in line and our Republic whole.

-This is what America is about and who we are. It is the heart of every issue we face.

- Bring the focus back to this on every issue and we can prevail. "I was born with that right…." The Constitution guarantees my right…" "The Constitution doesn't allow…." " That is against the Constitution…" " Common sense says…." " Your oath…"

- The common sense of this and the growing will to fight for them is spreading rapidly.

By: Wyndeward

Wyndeward — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:39:12 +0000

Could someone please explain it to Mr. Fineman over at Newsweek? He doesn't seem to understand the issue of incorporation or even that it is the Supreme Court's role to make rulings when the issue has been decided differently in different circuits.

Even arch-liberal Tribe "gets it."

By: Dimsdale

Dimsdale — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:40:11 +0000

There is a rather illuminating discussion of this topic at

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?i…

Worth the quick read, particularly in reference to heavy duty liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe's realization that "The people's 'right' to be armed cannot be trumped by the [Second] Amendment's preamble."

Your observation that Democrats use/twist/ignore/redefine/ the law to suit their own political expedience is exemplified by the recent decision by the MA legislature to fill Kennedy's seat in defiance of a law Kennedy himself worked to put into place (to foil then Gov. Mitt Romney's possible opportunity to fill Kerry's seat if he won the election).

By: Steve McGough

Steve McGough — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:04:37 +0000

A law professor letting me know I'm "absolutely right" concerning a legal matter is quite the self-esteem builder. … yet, very scary at the same time Thanks!

By: SoundOffSister

SoundOffSister — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:43:56 +0000

You are absolutely correct, Steve.

The question presented in the Chicago case that the Supreme Court will hear is whether the right to bear arms is a right "fundamental" to the founding of our country. If it is a "fundamental" right than it is "incorporated" into the laws of every state.

As you point out, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year in the Nordyke decision, held that the right to bear arms was a fundamental right, and thus was incorporated into the laws of California.

Pages 19 through 27 of Nordyke provide an illuminating discussion of the origins of the 2nd Amendment and are well worth anyone's time to read.

Both Nordyke and Heller recognize that the federal government and the states can ban guns in certain places, but they cannot put unreasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms so as to effectively ban arms entirely.

Personally, I would love to be present in the Supreme Court to hear the arguments in the Chicago case. I suspect it will be a "lively" discussion.