• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Will the SCotUS strike the new Chicago gun laws?

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Chicago approves new gun restrictions :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: City Hall

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.
Think the court will strike this or uphold it?
In part or in whole?
Explain your response.

For those that support this new law and/or believe it will be upheld:
Under the terms of strict scrunity, please explain how these things do not violate the constitution.

----------
Poll pending
Q: Do you think the court will strike this or uphold it?
-The court will strike it all, because...
-The court will uphold it all, because...
-The court will uphold the part that (specify)...
-The court will strike the part that (specify)...
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Poop.
Will a mod please add a poll.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,402
Reaction score
16,255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I say yes depending on when someone gets around to suing(which could take months, years or it could take decades) and depending on the political makeup of the SC. Most likely someone will get arrested for ignoring a blatantly unconstitutional law and then sue.
 
Last edited:

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Very likely as suing someone for something sometime does appear to be a pernicious American habit.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,762
Reaction score
74,639
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
lets hope so

true justice would be bugsy daley and his clowncil being tried for capital treason though
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Since it does not allow people to go outside their homes with their handgun, I think they should. How I interpret the 2nd amendment, your right to carry a handgun is definetly protected.
 

peepnklown

Frankernaut
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
177
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It’s hilarious to see the state trying to limit what we buy. Oh, if you want people to really care, the state would have to limit how many electronics a person can buy. I disagree with gun restrictions, period. This is a state issue and the federal/national government should not get involved but, who cares, eh? What does the Illinois constitution say?
Article 1, Section 22, ‘Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’

*When I type state, it can point to the local, state or federal/national government.
 
Last edited:

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Supreme Court will reject Chicago's blatant contempt of court and it will reject the nonsensical impractical unreasonable limits Chicago imposed on the excercise of a basic human right.

This will afford the Court the opportunity to correct the mistake they just made and they will then define what "reasonable" limits are.

A set of reasonable limits are:

A minimum nominal fee to get a concealed carry permit. And that fee would certainly be less than $100.

Felons on parole will be prohibited from possessing weapons (gee, that's already in law).

Arbitrarily banning gun sales in city limits are not reasonable, so long as the sellers are the necessary federal permits and are in compliance with municiple and state business laws.

Punitive taxation on ammunition is not reasonable. Absolutely no reason to tax ammo any differently than taxes imposed on nails from a hardware store.

Nor should additional taxes be applied to the guns themselves. Such taxes discriminate against gun owners and hence violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Prohibitions on gun sales to minors, ie, under 18 (and only 18) are reasonable. Carrying prohibitions on minors absent a supervisory adult are also reasonable.

Prohibiions on gun possession (we're talking REAL guns, people) by minors on public school grounds, is reasonable. Blanket prohibitions against lawful CCW adults on those same premises is not. (Edit: Unless the student is taking a gun safety/shooting course. Some rules would have the crafted to allow this)

If the City of Chicago owns Wrigley Field, the City of Chicago cannot reasonably ban White Sox fans from bringing their peices. If Wrigley Field is privately owned, and it should be since there's no reason why a city government should be in the baseball business, then Wrigley Field can write it's own rules about who can carry what on it's private property.

BUT, if Joe Smith wants to buy a gun, for no other reason than he wants one, and the government has no business inquiring into the reason, anyway, then Mr. Smith should not have to face ridiculus bureaucratic hurdles to buy the damn thing simply because the bureaucrats don't want to let him exercise his basic human freedom to arm himself.

And when I say it's a basic human freedom, humans were arming themselves, as part of their basic instinctual nature, for longer than homo sapiens as a species existed. Humans were arming themselves before humans had the physical ability to speak. That's how basic the right to keep and bear arms is.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom