Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Old 06-26-10, 03:49 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
jfoobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 37,812
The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

I figured this important Supreme Court case, the decision for which is expected on Monday, deserves its own thread.

In case you live under a legal rock, McDonald is basically the attempt to apply to state and local governments the SC's ruling of D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment is an individual right that must be recognized by federal jurisdictions, the argument being that it is actually a fundamental individual right that must apply everywhere.

Chicago has what are probably the strictest gun control laws of any city in the nation. The trial court and appeals court (7th Circuit) ruled in the city's favor but most are predicting that the SC will overturn.
jfoobar is offline  
Old 06-26-10, 03:53 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
jfoobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 37,812
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Mayor Daley and Chicago is preparing to react very quickly to a loss on Monday:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/...rt-ruling.html

Daley: City Council could consider new gun laws within days of Supreme Court ruling

The City Council could consider new gun control measures as soon as Wednesday if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Chicago's longstanding handgun ban Monday, Mayor Richard Daley said.

Daley, however, declined to provide specifics today on how his administration will respond. For months, City Hall has been drawing up plans as the justices heard the case and seemed to indicate they'll rule against Chicago.


"We already have our plans, but we have to wait for the decision just in case they have said something differently in the decision," Daley said when asked if the City Council will have a proposal to act on at Wednesday's meeting.

But Ald. Edward Burke, 14th, has recessed the council's Finance Committee until 9:15 a.m. Wednesday, 45 minutes before the regular council meeting is scheduled to start. If the committee met and approved a gun plan, the full council could vote on the plan the same day.

Daley has discussed several options if the gun ban is no longer in effect. Chicago could require firearm owners to purchase insurance and receive training or maintain a registry of how many guns are in particular homes so that police responding to an address will know what they're up against.

"What do (police) do if you're pointing a gun at somebody? Is it a violation of a law? You have a right to a gun," Daley said at a news conference in the 9200 block of South Cottage Grove Avenue to announce summer activities to keep kids off the streets.

Chicago has had a handgun ban in place since 1982. The Supreme Court overturned a similar ban in Washington D.C., and is set to rule on a challenge to Chicago's ban.

Burke today suggested the city might be better off without it — if other legislation that allowed law-abiding residents to register handguns took its place.

Under the late Mayor Richard J. Daley, handguns could be registered, and a “huge number” were, Burke said. Burke later headed the committee that recommended banning handguns and he said that led people who felt safer keeping handguns in their homes to begin flouting the law.

“Just as it’s important for a firemen to know that they are responding to a factor that has a license to store hazardous material, it’s important for policemen responding to a home, a domestic violence call, to know whether or not a person residing in that dwelling has a handgun,” Burke said.

Burke also noted that within the last 60 days, three otherwise law-abiding citizens used handguns to shoot violent offenders in or near their homes. “I think it’s interesting no one has prosecuted those law abiding citizens, and probably we ought to pass an ordinance and give each of them a medal,” he added.

Although he said he was reluctant to make suggestions before the Supreme Court ruled and set out parameters for reasonable gun-control legislation, Burke suggested the city might require handgun owners to register their weapons, undergo firearm training and obtain insurance.

“Of course, the argument from the gun proponents is that only law abiding citizens register,” he added. “The criminally inclined or those that have guns illegally don’t register, so you don’t get to know when guns are in the hands of bad people.”

But he said even good people using their weapons for harm in emotionally charged situations. “You’ll know from the statistics in domestic situations many times good people go haywire and wreak violence on their family members or strangers even though there’s no history in that regard,” he said.
I have always been in favor of the mandatory training idea, actually.
jfoobar is offline  
Old 06-26-10, 03:59 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,519
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

I am against the gun ban. I do support mandatory training and registration.
JasonF is offline  
Old 06-26-10, 06:38 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,915
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

As I said in the SCt thread, it looks like an Alito authored opinion (based on what opinions have been authored from that month of cases), which is a good sign for the gun-rights advocates.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 06-26-10, 07:23 PM
  #5  
2017 TOTY Winner
 
Save Ferris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 13,578
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Scary stuff! This ban is the only thing keeping the streets safe
That said, Im sure Daley will find a loophole. He always has.
Save Ferris is offline  
Old 06-26-10, 07:39 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

I really don't know what good mandatory training is if it is the 'training' that I know exists in a couple of states.

I'm absolutely opposed to a 'home registry.'
classicman2 is offline  
Old 06-26-10, 07:43 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

So it is the strictest gun control laws in the US that keeps Chicago so safe and free of guns. Hmmm.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 06-26-10, 07:48 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by classicman2 View Post
I really don't know what good mandatory training is if it is the 'training' that I know exists in a couple of states.

I'm absolutely opposed to a 'home registry.'
It would be ironic if the courts held that what happens with a woman's body is protected under privacy, what happens in one's bedroom is protected under privacy, but gun ownership which actually has some constitutional protection was not found to have protection under privacy.

I support mandatory training to vote.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 06-26-10, 07:58 PM
  #9  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,839
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

I DON'T WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TELLING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHAT TO DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

unless I agree with it
Groucho is offline  
Old 06-26-10, 08:40 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
I DON'T WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TELLING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHAT TO DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

unless I agree with it
You have unwittingly jarred loose a memory of mine.

Wasn't there some part of the Brady Bill that was struck down by the Supreme Court? I forget what the hell it was, but it seemed like it had to do with the Feds telling local sheriffs what to do.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 06-26-10, 10:17 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
I DON'T WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TELLING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHAT TO DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

unless I agree with it
I DON'T WANT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION ANY MORE THAN I WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!

"Shall not be infringed" means by Federal, State, and Local.
crazyronin is offline  
Old 06-26-10, 11:23 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,519
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by crazyronin View Post
I DON'T WANT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION ANY MORE THAN I WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!

"Shall not be infringed" means by Federal, State, and Local.
It didn't when the Second Amendment was ratified. Generally, the Fourteenth Amendment has been read to incorporate rights against the states on a right-by-right basis, but whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment is an open question (and will be for about 36 more hours).
JasonF is offline  
Old 06-26-10, 11:34 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
It didn't when the Second Amendment was ratified. Generally, the Fourteenth Amendment has been read to incorporate rights against the states on a right-by-right basis, but whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment is an open question (and will be for about 36 more hours).

So from when the Constitution was ratified to the Fourteenth Amendment states or local governments could require excessive bail, could unreasonably search and seize property, issue warrants without probable cause, etc?

Or is it only the Second Amendment that gets that "special" treatment?
crazyronin is offline  
Old 06-27-10, 12:07 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,519
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by crazyronin View Post
So from when the Constitution was ratified to the Fourteenth Amendment states or local governments could require excessive bail, could unreasonably search and seize property, issue warrants without probable cause, etc?
Correct, subject to their own state constitutions. Of course, most (if not all) of the provisions in the Bill of Rights are derived from English common law, and the states themselves drew on that tradition, either directly (in the case of the original 13 states) or indirectly (in the case of subsequent states, which of course drew directly on English common law, but also looked to the pre-existing states and the federal government as models).

But until the 14th Amendment (really until the late 19th or early 20th century when the Supreme Court articulated the incorporation doctrine), the Bill of Rights in the Federal Constitution was not viewed as placing any limits on the powers of state governments.

I would be very surprised if Monday's opinion does not hold that under the 14th Amendment, states may not impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
JasonF is offline  
Old 06-27-10, 12:15 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

But if they do, maybe we can get rid of that "free speech" crap, too.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 06-27-10, 12:32 AM
  #16  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,156
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

In CA we require training before you can get a gun license. I still need to take one of the courses.
Supermallet is offline  
Old 06-27-10, 01:03 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Age of consent is 18, you can marry your first cousin, and they require training before you get a gun? They don't know who the fuck they are, do they?
kvrdave is offline  
Old 06-27-10, 04:03 AM
  #18  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,982
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by Save Ferris View Post
Scary stuff! This ban is the only thing keeping the streets safe
That said, Im sure Daley will find a loophole. He always has.
You can't be meaning the streets of Chicago. There are shootings every weekend in the black and Mexican areas all year long and it's been that way this whole century.
wm lopez is offline  
Old 06-27-10, 08:49 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,610
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
I do support mandatory training and registration.
This just seems to be common sense, however I think Daley's argument is weak. Registration can help police know what's inside a house, but it's no guarantee.
Registering hazardous chemicals help fireman know what's inside in certain cases, but they can't tell if I happen to refinish furniture as a hobby, or store my pool chemicals inside during the winter.
logrus9 is offline  
Old 06-27-10, 10:11 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Sean O'Hara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,535
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
It would be ironic if the courts held that what happens with a woman's body is protected under privacy, what happens in one's bedroom is protected under privacy, but gun ownership which actually has some constitutional protection was not found to have protection under privacy.
I believe the "well regulated militia" clause is there for a reason, and it means the government can (and should) require training to own a gun. Which, at the least, would require licenses to buy a gun, if not outright registration.

It should also mean that the government can send anyone who owns a gun to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Sean O'Hara is offline  
Old 06-27-10, 11:09 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara View Post
I believe the "well regulated militia" clause is there for a reason, and it means the government can (and should) require training to own a gun. Which, at the least, would require licenses to buy a gun, if not outright registration.

It should also mean that the government can send anyone who owns a gun to Iraq or Afghanistan.
We already have registration - to buy a fun legally.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 06-27-10, 12:31 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
jfoobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 37,812
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by classicman2 View Post
We already have registration - to buy a fun legally.
I'll assume you meant "gun."

Federal Brady check records are only kept for 24 hours by statute if they haven't changed it. What specific weapon you are attempting to purchase is also not passed along to the Feds. Retention of purchase records by the state varies by the state I do believe, with many states not keeping permanent records.

It is also, as you know, quite trivial to purchase a long gun legally without any government involvement via a private sale.
jfoobar is offline  
Old 06-27-10, 01:36 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 11,747
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by jfoobar View Post
It is also, as you know, quite trivial to purchase a long gun legally without any government involvement via a private sale.
Picked this baby up at a rummage sale last weekend:



dork is offline  
Old 06-27-10, 01:45 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Originally Posted by Joe Camel View Post
Even worse, they require we pass a test before we get a license to drive. What the fuck is this world coming to??


Okay, obviously the constitution didn't take driving into consideration as it did guns. I'm okay with it so long as I get to make the test which allows people to use free speech.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 06-27-10, 01:47 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
Re: The McDonald v. Chicago (Gun Control) Thread

Cold dead hand bitches!!!
Dr Mabuse is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.