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.
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.
Red herring.SCOTUS also calls marriage a fundamental right, yet conservatives are generally in support of restrictions on that.
Ok... how does this pass strict scrutiny?The training part I'm ok with. Too many idiots out there with no idea how to properly handle a gun.
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.
Ok... how does this pass strict scrutiny?
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
So Arizona's law that directly contridicts the COTUS means they are a bunch of liberals?
And Texan Republicans wanting to outlaw Sodomy means they are liberals too?
Texas GOP platform: criminalize gay marriage and ban sodomy, outlaw strip clubs and pornography
Commence the mockery of Apdst now.
SCOTUS also calls marriage a fundamental right, yet conservatives are generally in support of restrictions on that.
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.
What the hell's COTUS? ****s of the United States? ********ers of the United States? The mockery of me? :rofl
You need to slow your roll.
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.
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.
I cant imagine the trauma of only being able to buy 1 gun a month.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?