I am confident that our glorious defenders will stand!
Posted on 07/24/2008 3:05:02 PM PDT by IncPen
CHICAGO (WBBM) -- Chicago’s gun laws have been challenged in federal court since the Supreme Court’s decision on the D.C. ban. But, City Corporation Counsel Mara Georges has told two City Council committees she’s confident Chicago’s law will stand.
Georges tells Aldermen the Supreme Court’s decision on Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban shouldn’t apply to Chicago, because previous Supreme Court rulings have said Second Amendment "right to bear arms" doesn’t apply to local governments, like Cities. She says D.C. is a federal jurisdiction.
And Georges is confident that, and other arguments, will prevail, at least in the lower courts. But, she admits, it’s hard to predict what the current Supreme Court will do. Still, it could be years before we find out.
The executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association is reacting to Georges' comments. Richard Pearson says they'll be pressing forward with their federal lawsuit against Chicago's ban and he says it will be up to the court to decide. He says there has been about 78 Supreme Court rulings on the subject, and if they have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn Chicago's ban, that's what they'll do.
Contents of this site are Copyright 2008 by WBBM.
Willful ignorance of the Constitution is no excuse, Mara.
Daley Says no to Heller.
gun ban will follow obama. get ‘em while you can.
This is just so ignorant on so many fronts. I'm just amazed at the stupidity of your average dimocRAT. These people are just as dangerous as Al Queda.
She’s self deluded.
A prince who arms his people trusts his people. If he disarms them then he fears his people.
Machiavelli
We’ll find out in court, Counselor Georges. We’ll find out in court.
I wonder if a civil rights lawsuit against her and Daley would be useful.
Counsel: Confident (Chicago) Gun Ban Will Continue to Kill More Citizens
Where did Mara Georges go to law school? Since when can a local government pass a law that trumps the federal constitution? What an idiot.
Amazing arrogance on the part of the fascist Chicago gun grabbers.
The Constitution applies to ALL of America, including the major cities.
And when it doesn’t hold the city will change two words for close synonyms, call it Revamped and noisily “pass” it to start the process all over again. A new office is created for the lawyers who have to be hired to defend the city’s gun law in court and taxes will have to go up to pay for it.
She may have a point. When was the last time Chicago was a part of America?
Of course all this litigation costs nothing, the cost being borne by taxpayers who need not be considered.
Politicians from Chicago can do that, at least they act as though they can. And it takes years, sometimes decades to undo the damage.
Another reason to vote against the Chicago machine candidate currently touring Germany.
Is this woman a retard>
In other words, she's saying the constitution doesn't apply in cities.
The Second Amendment, like most of the other Bill of Rights was intended to limit the reach of the Federal Government. The First Amendment, for example, explicitly says that “Congress shall make no law...”
Over the last 100 years, the Supreme Court has said that certain of the restrictions on the Federal Government set forth in the Bill of Rights apply to the states, via the 14th Amendment, which is said to “incorporate” certain of the Bill of Right restrictions on the states.
One example - although the First Amendment says that Congress shall not establish a religion, it was understood that this did not apply to the states and until the early 1800’s some states had established religions.
The District of Columbia is a Federal jurisdiction, over which Congress exercises all power, although some functions have been delegated to the elected DC government in recent years. There’s no question, therefore, that the restrictions of the Bill of Rights apply to DC. No need to decide whether the 14th Amendment requires incorporating the 2nd Amendment.
Heller is silent on whether the 2nd Amendment should be incorporated via the 14th amendment—and hence binding on the states. My belief is that the 2nd Amendment establishes an essential right and hence its restrictions should apply to the states, but that was not before the Supreme Court in the Heller case and has not yet been decided.
I don’t believe the argument that the 2nd Amendment does not explicitly state that it applies only to Congress and the Federal Government and hence it must be understood as applying to both the states and Federal government, is going to be accepted.
Jack
Yeah, good luck with that Mara...something tells me the twin anvils of reality and the Bill of Rights are going to provide an entertaining clue by four for the collection of idiots running Chi-Town.
So which Supreme Court rulings would those be, counselor?
And under your line of reasoning, the rest of the Bill Of Rights don't apply to local governments either, despite years of SCOTUS incorporation.
What an ignoramus!
Murder, rape and kidnapping must be legal on Federal property then.
No wonder D.C. has such a problem.
“She may have a point. When was the last time Chicago was a part of America?”
It’s a dreadful place.
I suppose if Chicago would like to secede from Illinois and/or from the Union, then the Heller decision wouldn’t apply. Let’s face it, the rest of the state of Illinois would probably welcome such a move. Maybe DC, SF, NY and LA can leave also. No big loss.
Just after New York was.
What else would she say? Anything else and like Stalin, Hizzhonor Da Mayar would find someone with who did not exhibit such an "insufficient degree of optimism". (That phrase was actually used by a project manager to my first mentor, who "fired" him from the project. In the end, the mentor was proved correct.)
Here is the new philosophy by city attorneys: (most of whom are generally incompetent lawyers to start off with. They are political appointees who could not get a job in the real world or are just using the post to further their own political careers)
“Its all legal untill a judge says otherwise”
IOW city attorneys hold to the notion that they do NOT have to look at the constitution (state or federal) or the law untill someone says they can do it. Untill then the city generates history where they can say “see the law is working”. It is akin to the illegal adoption cases where an illegal adopting parent says “we had the kidnapped child so long we get to keep them.”
Instead of working to fix the law (less expensive more popular option), they instead work to presearve the unconstitutional law.
Obviously this lawyer had flunked consitutional law and the whole series of case law that had the bill of rights apply to the states. By her argument slavery is still legal as a state issue.
And IMHO Chicago's 36 pages of gun laws in size 2 font goes a tad beyond any sane person's definition of 'reasonable restriction'.
If the gun grabbers were not so short-sighted, they would cede ground to avoid court decisions that could be devastating to their position.
Heller was the result of D.C.'s recalcitrance and Chicago will force the issue on incorporation.
I hate Chicago Nazis
www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-zorn-24-jul24,0,6357125.column
chicagotribune.com
Hard to find good reason to buy back guns
Eric Zorn
July 24, 2008
Here are six reasons I’m wary of gun buybacks, such as the one scheduled for Saturday in Chicago in which those who turn in firearms at any of 25 locations get a $100 prepaid credit card per gun, no questions asked.
1. I can’t imagine criminals disarming themselves for a lousy $100.
Sure, they might dump their excess, scrap or stolen piece for the bounty. But if having a gun is integral to their criminal activities, it’s absurd to think a buyback would inspire them to give up the tools of their trade.
2. I don’t see the economic sense of offering law-abiding people a flat fee for their guns.
If you own a firearm worth more than $100, as most firearms are, the only reason to take less for it is if you have no use for it. In that case, your gun is probably not contributing to the gun violence these programs are supposed to address.
3. I worry about buyback programs subsidizing crime and weapons traffic.
Excerpt
Constitutional law isn't even a requirement at many law schools, including Harvard. Seriously.
*Hey, you ever try to get blood stains out of white sheets?
Yep. I hope these jackasses keep flipping the finger to the courts — it’ll probably result in stronger anti-gun-control rulings than would otherwise be the case.
I am confident that our glorious defenders will stand!
Indeed, and I’m hopeful that how the decision comes down, but if B. Hussein Obama gets a couple of Supreme Court picks all bets are off.
Jack
You missed the one reason a criminal would turn in his gun - to dispose of a “hot” weapon that they had already used.
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.