Anonymous asked in SportsOutdoor RecreationHunting · 1 decade ago

NRA -v- Chicago, gun ban?

I live in Indiana, just outside Chi. I'm from, and still work there. I just got an e-mail the NRA is taking it to the supreme court. yesterday in Chicago the judges decided the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal government. there were 8 fatal shoots here to days ago. One being a cop.

You guys know I would like to see the ban over turned. I have to leave my CCW in the glove box while at work, but the bad guys got 'em.

Do you gun owners think it will be over turned like in DC?

I would have asked this in Gov. but 1/2 them kids are clueless!!!



A-1 well when I lived there. I lived on 37th & Lowe. Daly's brother was 4 doors down and his Mom was on 36th & Lowe. If you go to vote they don't have republican ballot. my cosin and I were sharing a place and he didn't vote the morning of the election. there were 2 city workers at my door asking for him that afternoon. you wouldn't even believe some of the BS if I told you. but in return white/irish like myself get favors. I hit a black guy drunk head on in his lane. the cops (cops in my family) told me "go home and make a report tomorrow" "well take care of him" he got a ticket for driving without insurance. I also had the italians on the corner thow a brick thew my window during an Irish party.....we came out with bads. the cops wouldn't come till they hear " guns are coming out" then they made us shack hands, and we split the cost of the window. it all happened because a girl leaving my house called them dirty day...goes.

It is a different world, but Daly does look out for

7 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    If I was a gambling man I'd wager that this gun ban will be overturned by ty courts especially after the Heller ruling.

  • 1 decade ago

    No, this has not been decided by the SC yet. The Heller Decision applied to the federal government, or in that specific case, Washington, DC because that is essentially a federal city.

    The status quo right now is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. We've had a recent conflicting ruling on the 9th circuit of appeals that says it does. It also looks good in that even though the Heller decision was a 5-4 vote, all the justices wrote that they believed the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, not a collective right.

    So this specific issue about whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the states may indeed wind up in the SC because of the conflicting Appellate court rulings. And if it happens quickly, like in the next 2 years, I think it will be decided in our favor. Sotomayor is replacing another liberal on the court and that shouldn't effect the 5-4 balance we have right now.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The Fed Supreme Court will shoot them down like a dog. What the Court in IL said was that the States have the right to pick and choose what Amendments they want to recognize and that the Constitution ONLY applies o the District of Columbia and not the other 50 States. There is NO WAY the SCOTUS will let that stand. You can't pick and choose. It's a package deal.

    By ruling that, they just said States don't have to pay any attention to Roe V Wade if they don't want to.

    What the hell do they have in the water up there?

    And yes, I know most of them were appointed by Republicans. I don't care. One more reason why life time appointments should be done away with.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I read bout that when I opened my paper, and yes one was a cop (wasn't he off duty?)

    I am happy to support the NRA and I hope they take chicago to the courts and kick their asses. It is a right to law abiding citizens, and if I lived in Chi-town in this day and age, there is no better security than a gun. Hell I live in Valparaiso area in Indiana and I carry, and it may not be as bad as chicago but I am here to tell you, no matter where you go anymore it's dangerous.

    Hell they beat the DC bans, I think they can take Chicago by storm like they did in DC.

    Source(s): me
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 2A
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    It has already by Supreme Court.....Chicago is in violation....and Daly the Dickwad should of been tar and feathered long ago. Why do the people of Chicago keep electing a bafoon.

    No where does it give Chicago the right to ban the opinion of the court.


    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation



    of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physicallycapable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.


    The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.


    The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.


    Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.


    None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


    The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this

    Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3


    prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in thehome be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossiblefor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense andis hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfyhis prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

    478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

    SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,

    C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I hope it is overturned. I also think that anyone who loves their gun rights should refuse to spend a penny inside the Chicago city limits. I even cancelled my trip up there this summer. Hate my guns, hate my dollars.

  • smith
    Lv 4
    4 years ago


    Source(s): Self Defence Training
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.