• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Per the article:
The new ordinance, which city officials called the strictest in the nation, allows adults in Chicago to buy one gun a month — 12 a year. But they must pay registration and permit fees and take five hours of training.

The measure...bars gun owners from so much as stepping outside their homes with a handgun, even if it’s only onto their porches or garages.

According to the SCotUS, the right to arms is a fundamental right, proctected by the Constitution.

As such, restrictions on fundamental rights are subjected to a strict scrutiny test to determine of they violate the constitution. Under this test, the restriction is assumned to be unconstitutional until proven otherwise.

For those that support this new law or the things included in it:
Under the terms of strict scrunity, show that these things do not violate the constitution.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,457
Reaction score
36,543
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Per the article:


According to the SCotUS, the right to arms is a fundamental right, proctected by the Constitution.

As such, restrictions on fundamental rights are subjected to a strict scrutiny test to determine of they violate the constitution. Under this test, the restriction is assumned to be unconstitutional until proven otherwise.

For those that support this new law or the things included in it:
Under the terms of strict scrunity, show that these things do not violate the constitution.

SCOTUS also calls marriage a fundamental right, yet conservatives are generally in support of restrictions on that.

As far as this goes, I'm not really sure what legitimate state interest is served by the 1-per-month limit. How often do people buy 12 guns per year anyway? Couple years of that and you've got a serious arsenal. The people who do this are probably collectors or serious hobbyists, (or run a gun store, but I imagine a business is exempt?) not exactly the sort of people who go out and rob liquor stores.

The training part I'm ok with. Too many idiots out there with no idea how to properly handle a gun. Trigger discipline, what's that?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Why do politicians waste time and money writing and enacting laws that are almost guaranteed to be struck down by a Supreme Court? Waste of tax payer dollars.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SCOTUS also calls marriage a fundamental right, yet conservatives are generally in support of restrictions on that.
Red herring.
Aside from that - legal marriage exists because the state created it, and can be elimitaed by the state at any time. Thus, marriage is a privilege.

The training part I'm ok with. Too many idiots out there with no idea how to properly handle a gun.
Ok... how does this pass strict scrutiny?
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Red herring.
Aside from that - legal marriage exists because the state created it, and can be elimitaed by the state at any time. Thus, marriage is a privilege.

No, marriage has been ruled to be a fundamental right by the SCotUS in at least two different rulings. Marriage is not a privilege, it is a right.

Ok... how does this pass strict scrutiny?

I don't believe it does pass scrutiny.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Per the article:


According to the SCotUS, the right to arms is a fundamental right, proctected by the Constitution.

As such, restrictions on fundamental rights are subjected to a strict scrutiny test to determine of they violate the constitution. Under this test, the restriction is assumned to be unconstitutional until proven otherwise.

For those that support this new law or the things included in it:
Under the terms of strict scrunity, show that these things do not violate the constitution.

Just don't comply with it.
It's very unlikely anyone will even know.

Also, Daley is a dumb ass, along with the city council.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,586
Reaction score
50,204
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Did they actually say "strict scrutiny" in the latest opinion?? If so that is AWESOME!! :mrgreen:
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It's simply more wasted tax payer money - as this law like the others before it will inevitably be challenged in court. I guess Chicago has nothing better to do than prepare and lose lawsuits. :shrug:
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
They can win, technically, because they didn't ban guns in total.

I don't think so. It won't be seen as reasonable or within the spirit of the prior rulings to make bringing a handgun outside of one's home illegal. Like I said, it'll be challenged and yet again it Chicago will lose... I don't think the SCOTUS will be immune to the obvious games Chicago is playing either. Either way, it's still a waste of tax payer money.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't think so. It won't be seen as reasonable or within the spirit of the prior rulings to make bringing a handgun outside of one's home illegal. Like I said, it'll be challenged and yet again it Chicago will lose... I don't think the SCOTUS will be immune to the obvious games Chicago is playing either. Either way, it's still a waste of tax payer money.

I agree that it was stupid but the wording handed down from the Supreme Court alludes to the fact that localities can regulate how they want as long as it isn't an outright ban.
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SCOTUS also calls marriage a fundamental right, yet conservatives are generally in support of restrictions on that.

Stop being dishonest. That decesion was based on race not sexual preference.

As far as this goes, I'm not really sure what legitimate state interest is served by the 1-per-month limit. How often do people buy 12 guns per year anyway? Couple years of that and you've got a serious arsenal. The people who do this are probably collectors or serious hobbyists, (or run a gun store, but I imagine a business is exempt?) not exactly the sort of people who go out and rob liquor stores.

The training part I'm ok with. Too many idiots out there with no idea how to properly handle a gun. Trigger discipline, what's that?

Always amazing how liberals like you are all for supressing rights spelled out literally in the constitution but when its something you want not defined by the constitution then its a right.
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No, marriage has been ruled to be a fundamental right by the SCotUS in at least two different rulings. Marriage is not a privilege, it is a right.

More lies. No surprise considering the source.

The judgment was based on race not sexual preference. Pretty sad to see you continue to lie about this despite being exposed every time you try it.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Why do politicians waste time and money writing and enacting laws that are almost guaranteed to be struck down by a Supreme Court? Waste of tax payer dollars.

Because they're Liberals.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It shouldn't take the SCOTUS to convince people that state and local governments can't circumvent The Constitution.

Obama says that the Arizone immigration law is illegal. That logic makes every single gun control law in the country, illegal.
 

mikhail

blond bombshell
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
4,728
Reaction score
763
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I cant imagine the trauma of only being able to buy 1 gun a month.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Last edited:

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
SCOTUS also calls marriage a fundamental right, yet conservatives are generally in support of restrictions on that.

More like gays insist that launch weapons are "firearms" exactly the same as a rife in every way.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why do politicians waste time and money writing and enacting laws that are almost guaranteed to be struck down by a Supreme Court? Waste of tax payer dollars.

I often suspect that they write such laws precisely so that SCOTUS can shoot them down and add Judicial precedent to the existing statute's credibility.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Last edited:

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I often suspect that they write such laws precisely so that SCOTUS can shoot them down and add Judicial precedent to the existing statute's credibility.

Wait. I don't get that. Why would people who want such laws to be enforced write them to get shot down and add to precedent aganist them? Jerry, you totally lost me there. Or are you thinking that the actual writers of the bill are secretly opposed to the politicians pushing them.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wait. I don't get that. Why would people who want such laws to be enforced write them to get shot down and add to precedent aganist them? Jerry, you totally lost me there. Or are you thinking that the actual writers of the bill are secretly opposed to the politicians pushing them.

If I were a pro-choice legislator, I might quietly support a weak pro-life law so that it would get shot down; it's failure would reinforce my pro-choice position.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
If I were a pro-choice legislator, I might quietly support a weak pro-life law so that it would get shot down; it's failure would reinforce my pro-choice position.

So the anti-anchor baby people really support the failure of a bill to deny citizenship to reinforce their anti-anchor baby position? I don't know about that one.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,878
Reaction score
82,500
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I cant imagine the trauma of only being able to buy 1 gun a month.

we should limit you to one post a month

no harm I suppose


those who normally will cause harm with guns won't obey such restrictions

why should those who don't cause problems face such moronic limits?
 
Top Bottom