Posted on 08/24/2007 1:35:24 PM PDT by neverdem
(URBANA)---Some people in Champaign County are afraid their guns will be taken away. That's why pro-gun advocates are trying to get a resolution passed that would promise the 2nd amendment would be protected. People say they feel Chicago and Cook County is trying to run the rest of the state of Illinois. That's because Cook County put a gun ban into effect this past February on long guns, like rifles and shotguns. The ban says people can't even have the guns in their own home. Some people in Champaign County feel that's unconstitutional, and they went to the county board meeting Thursday night to speak up before the ban moves south.
"I don't understand how one county can do that to their citizens." Says Guns Rights Advocate Valinda Rowe "Then turn around and try to do it to the rest of the state. We've got to take a stand."
They did try and take that stand as around a dozen people spoke at the meeting, urging county board members to pass a resolution, saying Cook County's ban is unconstitutional. They'll have to wait though, because the board tabled the issue.
29 counties in the state have already passed an anti-gun ban resolution, people at the meeting hope Champaign County becomes the 30th to do so.
They can look but they won't find. Da Mayor keeps this up and he'll force the rest of us to re-write the state constitution.
He knows the gangs are simply buying the guns and ammo in the suburbs, meaning his laws are next to worthless. He keeps pressuring the state legislature to follow his example to avoid that. I guess he forgets that Illinois isn't Hawaii and the states surrounding Illinois have guns.
That sounds like it could ban Manlicher stocks also.
They were afraid of the power of the newly formed federal government and wanted additional checks against it. (They trusted their own state -- remember, only white, male landowners were allowed to vote.) Their concern is reflected in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."
Each state had its own Bill of Rights. The thought that one set of laws would apply to every state was contrary to the concept of federalism that they were attempting to create. If one state restricted rights, a citizen could always move to another.
100 years after the ratification of the 14th amendment, the activist U.S. Supreme Court started applying the protection of certain rights to the states. Sounds like a good idea until you realize that the U.S. Supreme Court now interprets the right for every state -- if nude dancing is protected "speech", now every state must allow it. If abortion and homosexual sodomy are "privacy" rights, ditto. Freedom of religion? Fuggedaboutit.
This has done more to destroy federalism than the Commerce Clause can ever hope to.
Do you really want the second amendment to apply to the states? (Currently, it doesn't.) Do you really want five liberal U.S. Supreme Court justices defining "arms"? Or what they think "keep" means? Or "bear"?
Yeah, Illinois has some crappy gun laws. The state constitution provides little protection. But we can always move to another state. Imagine Chicago laws nationwide -- a liberal U.S. Supreme Court can guarantee that.
That turns the whole nature of a Constitutional Republic on its head. Even elected lawmakers are limited to what they can pass, when there is a written Constitution, they are limited by it. In this case there are two, the federal Constitution, which states that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and the Illinois constitution which states that "the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This law bans both keeping and bearing of entire classes of arms, which is a definite infringement upon the right to do so.
IIRC the "Ranch Rifle" nomemclature was adopted in anticipation of the AWB. Ruger supported the ban, as long as his "little rifle" wasn't included. That's why the factory stopped providing >10 round magazines (not that it matters, since the laws almost always are phrased "ability to accept") and such accessories as flash hiders, bayonet lugs, etc.
I don't see how the SKS with removable magazine can be banned by the CA AWB, while the Mini-30 is not. Both have "pistol grip" stocks, both have ability to accept > 10 round magazines. Only one additional evil feature is required beyond "ability to accept and semi-automatic to qualify for the AWB. Since bayonet lugs are not a factor in the California law, nor are barrel shrouds, The removable magazine SKS and the Mini-14/30 are virtually identical in terms of features, and in the case of the Mini-30 in caliber. Their "evil feature" is their "pistol grip".
BTW, Bill Ruger may have been the source of the 10 round magzine business, although is proposal was for a 15 or more round magazine ban.
Meaning they haven't ruled one way or the other, so it's still in legal limbo, except in the jurisdiction of the lower courts which did rule.
Depending on which side of the rack the prosecutor got up on that morning, and how badly he needs to be seen as "Doing Something" about crime, yea it could.
Even in your best case, of the second amendment only applying to the federal government, they will have to do so, probably sooner rather than later. If they define them such as to allow any and all gun control, the feds will eventually implement it anyway, and state laws won't matter a bit. OTOH, if they apply the second to the states as well as the federal government, and interpret it as written, that is that the right is to "keep", that is have or possess, and "bear" that is carry around, and that right belongs to the people, then all state laws to the contrary will also be voided. An intermediary situation, with the feds not violating the second and the states violating the right of the people, is likely untenable in the long run, because many even most states have the "right of the people" or "right of the individual" language and the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of "the people, "keep", "bear" and "arms" will be used as precedent by state courts. After all the second amendment has been around since 1791, and almost all state constitutions have either been written, or rewritten, since then. The words must mean the same thing in them as they do in the second amendment.
Not a true statement. The USSC has never ruled whether it is or not.
With that as your definition, 99.9999% of our laws are in legal limbo.
But I'm supposed to be concerned about one law (which has since expired)? I suppose you've got a point hidden somewhere?
I don't think "pistol grip stock" is at all the same as the "conspicuously protruding" pistol grip which is defined in the law. Mini-14s can accept AR15 type pistol grips, but that would trigger inclusion under the "features" law.
The SKS might only be included under the other law, which lists specific makes and models. (I don't own an SKS so I know little about them or their legal treatment.)
You don't see a connection between the now-expired federal assault weapons ban and the Chicago ban? Do you not think the expiration of the one was the motivation for passing the other?
Perhaps you could explain how the "police power" mentioned in the Illinois Constitution includes the power to outlaw the attachment of a four-ounce plastic pistol grip to a rifle stored in one's home. Are there any limits at all to the "police power" in Illinois? Or is it your opinion that the Chicago ban is an unconstitutional infringement under Illinois law?
Correct. I never said they did. But it is constitutional until they rule it UNconstitutional.
Just the way things work.
“And nobody in Cook County challenged that in court?”
I find that really hard to beleive. There has to be something going on or being planned by someone.
Yes. As a matter of fact, they're almost identical. Are you implying that the federal AWB would be constitutional under all state constitutions?
"Perhaps you could explain how the "police power" mentioned in the Illinois Constitution includes the power to outlaw the attachment of a four-ounce plastic pistol grip to a rifle stored in one's home"
What's the purpose of attaching a four-ounce plastic pistol grip to a rifle? Maybe that's your answer.
Hey, I'm not going to sit here and defend every line in the AWB. If Chicago or any state wishes to constitutionally regulate the weapons of their citizens, that's their choice. Or are you saying they don't have that choice?
"Or is it your opinion that the Chicago ban is an unconstitutional infringement under Illinois law?"
Under the Illinois constitution, cities have banned handguns. Homeowners have been arrested for using a handgun to defend themselves against burglars. We require a state-approved and state-issued photo ID just to handle a gun in a store or purchase ammunition.
I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that the Chicago ban will be found unconstitutional. I'm just thankful that Springfield didn't pass it statewide.
State laws will not be directly affected, no. But any U.S. Supreme Court decision on the second amendment will influence state supreme courts and state legislatures.
"OTOH, if they apply the second to the states as well as the federal government, and interpret it as written"
You mean interpret it the way you want them to. Many lower federal courts seem to be interpreting it differently that the way you think they should.
What if the U.S. Supreme Court followed the ruling of the 7th Circuit Court in Quilici v.Village of Morton Grove (1982) where Judge Bauer stated, "Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment."?
Are there any limits at all to the "police power" in Illinois?
Its already been proposed here that under 'majority rule principles' States are limited only by their own state constitutions when it comes to the right to own and carry arms.
Majority rule communitarian's use those same socialistic principles when they attempt to regulate morality. -- And indeed States can regulate the criminal aspects of 'sins' like prostitution/gambling/etc, -- They have never lost that police power.
But due process must be used in the writing of enforceable constitutional law. -- Legislators in the USA are obligated by oath to write only constitutional regulations regarding our lives, liberties or properties.
-- They cannot prohibit acts [or items of property like guns], just because they are morally offended by the act, or imagine that the item is 'too dangerous' to possess.
-- Such prohibitions can only be enacted by Amendment, and prohibitive police power 'laws' are unconstitutional.
Freewheeling Frank sez; “Conservatism will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no conservatism.”
Preach on Furry Freak!
The real cash cow is the price to NOT grow anything. /s
I used to see a lot of it passing thru to the lake and on the railroad.
I must admit I was rabble rousing a bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.