Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is turning a traditional NRA argument on its head in her effort to keep handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park. The National Rifle Association has long fought gun bans saying the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Gun advocates are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to find Chicago, and Oak Park's gun bans unconstitutional.
But in a brief submitted to the Court, Illinois Attorney General argues that the whole point of the second amendment is to protect local governments from the might of the federal government. So it would be ironic if the federal government in the form of the U.S. Supreme Court, stepped in to the gun debate and now used the second amendment to diminish local powers.
Madigan argues that local governments should regulate guns based on local conditions. Federal courts should not, "enforce a national standard with which every state and locality must comply, regardless of popular will or circumstance." The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case march second.
I believe this has come up before. On this very blog, it's been explained that a similar irony exists in the Heller vs. D.C. ruling.
Do you see any inconsistency in the pro-gun activist who generally abhors the federal government's dictates yet can't wait for the Supreme Court to rule in the Chicago case?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Oh, I can see the inconsistancy there. It is sort of funny, but these cases are determining whether or not the Second amendment applies to all citizens regardless of state law. I personally believe that it does.
ReplyDeleteIL Attorney General: Federal courts should not, "enforce a national standard with which every state and locality must comply, regardless of popular will or circumstance."
ReplyDeleteLet's disregard how that has not applied to abortion and most civil rights cases (and this is a civil rights case). But doesn't that argumnent knock out the enforcement of every "national" gun law -- the kind that gun control advocates claim is neccessary?
Or is the IL AG's statement just a cover for the anti-gunowner advocate's real position: Their wanting "local" control or "national" control depends solely upon whether they like or dislike the local or national law.
PS: My position on this matter is consistent -- if there are rights, then they apply nationwide. I would even agree to more gun control than most pro-gunowners -- CONDITIONAL upon those controls be truly national and pre-emptive of harsher local laws.
"Do you see any inconsistency in the pro-gun activist who generally abhors the federal government's dictates yet can't wait for the Supreme Court to rule in the Chicago case?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think I am inconsistent in saying that I don't want gun restrictions on the Federal, State or local level.
"But in a brief submitted to the Court, Illinois Attorney General argues that the whole point of the second amendment is to protect local governments from the might of the federal government. So it would be ironic if the federal government in the form of the U.S. Supreme Court, stepped in to the gun debate and now used the second amendment to diminish local powers. "
ReplyDeleteHer argument is hypocritical considering the classic gun-controller refrain is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the right to resist or overthrow the government.
I make this point all the time: the Second Amendment was to protect the States' militias from Federal interference. Tyranny is federal and comes in the form of a large standing army:
ReplyDeleteIt is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. Joseph Story
It also was to protect a Swiss style military where the professional army served mainly a training and administrative role. The militia was intended to be a civilian defense force. It's all a very peaceful concept.
The Mexican American war was the beginning of the End for the Second Amendment.
Of course, I see this right being incorporated since it makes as little sense as finding a Second Amendment right outside of militia duty. Heller made a joke of the Second Amendment.
In fact, only Brady seems to be happy about Heller.
Sorry, the Second Amendment has done nothing to prevent Federal tyranny either: look at the US defense budget.
States do not have the right to violate the Constitutional Rights of American citizens.
ReplyDeleteWhen they do, they should be struck down by the SCOTUS.
Hell, that's the whole point of the SCOTUS, to strike down unconstitutional laws.
What other Constitutional Rights to you believe states and localities should be able to wantonly violate without repurcussions?
Should Chicago be free to bring back slavery? Separate but equal? Institute a poll tax for women?
The difference lies in more freedom vs less freedom.
ReplyDeleteThere is no irony.
Do you see any inconsistency in the pro-gun activist who generally abhors the federal government's dictates yet can't wait for the Supreme Court to rule in the Chicago case?
ReplyDeleteDon't confuse the states rights folks with federalists. True states rights believers are a small minority. Most of us are federalists, which means that power is divided between the state and federal governments according to the constitutional system that defines our Republic. Part of that constitutional system is the protection of constitution rights of its citizens from abuse, either federal, through the Bill of Rights, or by the states, through the Fourteenth Amendment.
It's only inconsistent if you believe in "states rights" and believe the federal government has no business in much of anything, but you won't find very many of those people.
Gunloons inconsistent???
ReplyDeleteOf course, they are. Look, gunloons will vote for any politician who toes the NRA line even if the same politico believes in warrantless wiretapping, torture, and indefinite detention of US citizens without charges.
They also favor politicos who favor denying equal rights to gays and women.
But if you ask any gunloon--he'll say he loves the BoR.
--JadeGold
"Do you see any inconsistency in the pro-gun activist who generally abhors the federal government's dictates yet can't wait for the Supreme Court to rule in the Chicago case?"
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing inconsistent about advocating for state sovereignty, while simultaneously arguing that state (and local) governments must be compelled (if, as in this case, it's not happening voluntatrily) to recognize fundamental human rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms--you know, the one that shall not be infringed.
As Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI) stated in a speech introducing the 14th Amendment in 1866:
To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be – for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature – to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right pertaining to each and all of the people; the right to keep and bear arms . . .
The reason for the need to protect the right to keep and bear arms from violation by state and local governments, of course, was that in the postwar South, laws--some of the very first "gun control" laws, in fact--were quickly passed in order to render freed blacks disarmed and helpless to depredation by the KKK and similar terrorist thugs.
The KKK may now be largely irrelevant, but government-mandated defenselessness is no less evil than it was in 1866, and no less in need of being resisted--with force, if necessary.
kaveman summed it up. "The difference lies in more freedom vs less freedom."
ReplyDeleteOf course you must be the one to determine what freedom is. Many folks don't consider it freedom to have to wonder every time they go to the mall or to a school if some of the people around them are carrying guns. Many people do not feel comforted by that. They feel that some of the ones who have guns cannot be trusted with them and that puts everyone in danger. This is not freedom, according to them. You can mock them all you want but it doesn't change the fact that what you call freedom is based on what you want, plain and simple.
Real freedom would be a society in which no one has a gun and you don't have to worry about it.
Mikeb says:"Real freedom would be a society in which no one has a gun and you don't have to worry about it."
ReplyDeleteYep--"real freedom" is mandated defenselessness. And ignorance is strength, and war is peace--right, Mikeb?
"Real freedom would be a society in which no one has a gun and you don't have to worry about it."
ReplyDeleteNoone?
What about the politicians and their bodygaurds? Surely you don't mean everyone, do you?
No, you just mean the little people.
Can you name a single country on earth in which "noone" has guns?
Notice no one else mentioned this had to deal with Federal Interference in State matters regarding the militia?
ReplyDeleteOh, yeah, the militia. I guess we can forget about them as well.
SO, DC v. Heller really means: "inconvenient language can be ignored" and the Amendment process can be bypassed.
That's really good for preserving the Bill of Rights.
"Real freedom would be a society in which no one has a gun and you don't have to worry about it."
ReplyDeleteOnly in anti-gun fantasy world is the denial of individual choice defined as "real freedom"
Laci - The people are the militia. Are you claiming that the States / localities have the authority to disarm the militia at their whim?
Mike W.: The people are NOT the militia.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't pull the Unorganised militia rubbish: that's the same as saying you have a draft card. It is also called the reserve militia and is a draft pool. Or to Let Story Define it:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
Does the term "Muster day" have any meaning for you??? Been to one lately?
The militia is defined by Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 and is the National Guard: not the people.
Unless you are enrolled, you ain't the militia.
Add in the concept of militia ballot? Ever hear of that?
ReplyDeleteYup. The whole revisionist history claim that the Bill of Rights was written so that we could form the National Guard well over a 100 years later theory. Strange that no one born before 1970 ever uses that one.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm concerned, states' rights do not supercede individual civil rights. Otherwise there'd still be slaves in the south.
ReplyDeleteI bow to your superior logic Laci! I really do!
ReplyDeleteThe National Guard was founded in 1903
The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791.
So please tell me how the 2nd Amendment could have referred to an organization that didn't exist until 112 years later? Your position defies all logic.
Not to mention that all we have to do is look at the writings of so many of the Founders to see what they meant by the militia. We also have the 1792 militia acts, which plainly stated that individual citizens had to possess their own arms and ammunition.
But hey, keep trotting out the same old debunked arguments that have now also been debunked as a matter of law. It just makes you seem desperate.
Many folks don't consider it freedom to have to wonder every time they go to the mall or to a school if some of the people around them are carrying guns.
ReplyDeleteMany would also like the freedom to go shopping without encountering N*****s, f*gs, g*oks or t*welheads. We call those people bigots.
Many people do not feel comforted by that. They feel that some of the ones who have guns cannot be trusted with them and that puts everyone in danger.
You don't have the right to demand others change so you can feel a certain way.
This is not freedom, according to them. You can mock them all you want but it doesn't change the fact that what you call freedom is based on what you want, plain and simple.
Real freedom would be a society in which no one has a gun and you don't have to worry about it.
Real freedom would be a society where violence is so rare, the presence of a gun is no more upsetting than the presence of a chainsaw.
Being required to rely on authority for your safety, without being allowed to take care of it yourself is not freedom.
Sevesteen, You gave me an idea for a good question on the Graduate School Entrance Exam.
ReplyDeleteWhich one of the following does not belong in the group?
Middle Easterners
Orientals
Blacks
Gays
Gun Owners
I'd say Gun Owners. Do you think I'd be accepted to Harvard with that answer?
In case my humor is eluding anyone, I know you follow me, Sevesteen, I'd simply say, I don't think gun owners can be considered in the category of groups who are prejudiced against. I honestly don't know why so many of you insist on this.
I really hate the comparisons, but to use one of yours, if people in larger and larger numbers where walking around with chain saws hooked on their work belts, the kind that can be turned on by pressing a button or pulling a rip cord, you'd have a similar outcry. And guns are much more potentially dangerous than chain saws.
It's the tool, man. It's the dangerous tool that's got everybody upset, as you often point out yourself. So you can't have it both ways and also claim it's the people (gun owners) who are being discriminated against.
Discrimination against gun owners isn't exactly the same as discrimination against races, and that wasn't my point. I suppose it is closer to religious discrimination, in that it is somewhat a choice, and someone can hide his status.
ReplyDeleteI suppose a closer parallel is that it makes me slightly uncomfortable to see a gay couple being affectionate in public, or a woman breastfeeding. The problem is with me, and I have absolutely no right to expect them to change or hide. Also like guns, if I were to see it more often, I'd get used to it. Also like guns, there are some breastfeeding women and gays that "flaunt it" in public, to get attention.