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.
Am I understanding you that State laws can supersede the Constitution?
Neverdem's reply:
Some folks and states think they can. Some argue that the Supreme Court has to make a decision to incorporate the various amendments of the Constitution in order to make the amendments apply to the states. This legal mumbo jumbo seems to have occurred after the 14th Amendment.
Their argument was that the U.S. Constitution and its amendments restricted only the federal gov't, and that the states can do as they please. Folks who believe in this line of reasoning are usually statists, e.g. Giuliani.
Ron:
I think you are saying that you don't agree and thanks for clearing that up. Those people you mentioned obviously never read the 9th and 10th amendments.
FR's communitarian's & closet socialists have read the 9th & 10th, -- they just refuse to agree that 'majority rule' in our Republic does not trump constitutional restraints on our various levels of governments.
Socialism is a political disease that misuses 'democracy' to attack the rule of constitutional law.
See comment# 44.
...knew someone would say that. :-)
this is why people who still live there call it crook county
illinois absent chicago and crook county might be a decent state to live in.
No. Nor is it included in the Kalifornia ban, probably because it's more common name is the "Ranch Rifle" and the rural ranching community would all become criminals if it was included.
That is why any freedom-loving Kalifornian should own several.
But as other posters have pointed out, the Mini-14 IS included in the Chicago ban. Luckily, Chicagoans can look to their own state constitution for protection of their right to keep and bear arms. Isn't that right?
The march of the anti-gunners will end at nothing short of a total ban of all firearms. Anybody should be able to recognize that there are no logical limits to what they wish to outlaw.
Thanks for posting.
The NRA fought the Morton Grove and Oak Park gun bans. The state supreme court ruled against us. The state constitution starts with “Subject to the Police Power, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. The writers of that constitution probably mean a police office could disarm a suspect. The officials of the state decided THEY were the “police power”. In other words, subject to their whims, you don’t have any rights in that state.
Before calling out the NRA, I hope you’re a member. We’re four million trying to support the rights of eighty million.
can’t have the people protect themselves from the cops in a bar fight.
Yep, and just think how much cooperation he'll get from his fellow liberals if he becomes President Giuliani. /s
From the New York Times, March 8, 1994----
Democratic lawmakers praised the Mayor's push for gun control. "It would be great if Mayor Giuliani could become the point Republican pushing comprehensive gun control legislation," said Representative Charles E. Schumer, the Brooklyn Democrat who is the leading proponent of handgun control in the House of Representatives.
A liberal bully President Giuliani and Chuckie Schumer will have LOTS of chances to work together in a bi-partisan manner.
“The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with state laws.”
I agree with the following:
“A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law.”
— Justice John Marshall
later read
The First City and the Second City are still famous enough to be dominated by the businesses of the upper class, rich lawyers, bankers, and such. And those that keep them entertained. They don’t carry their own guns, they have somebody else do it for them.
Sorry, but that does not make any sense. Why would the States have withheld ratification of the Constitution until the Amendments were in place if they did not apply to the States?
Or is it that they were to prevent the Federal Government from enacting laws contrary to the rights the original 13 enshrined in their own Constitutions, (which would have 'trumped' state law) and which most of the several and succeeding states also enshrined in theirs?
Your second scenario would be the case for “Congress shall not” language (states could and did have contrary policies, such as states that established various churches until modern incorporative jurisprudence squashed that), but the others don’t speak to any specific government authority.
None of the BOR affect state laws!!!!!
At least thats the bleat of the gungrabbers.Except for the 14th Amendment which is likely illegal anyway.
barbra ann
I'm assuming the federal law is constitutional. Meaning the law doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Once that constitutional federal law exists, it trumps any state law to the contrary.
The second aendment is, and has been since it was written, a restriction on federal laws only. States are bound only by their state constitutions when it comes to gun rights. Which is why gun laws (eg., concealed carry) vary from state to state.
Meaning the law is constitutional.
"A law either is or is not a violation of the Constitution."
Legally it is not, until a court says it is.
Just who are the idiots going door to door to collect them?
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.