Loading ...
The Supreme Court suggested Tuesday it will strike down U.S. cities’ outright bans on handguns, a ruling that could establish a nationwide ownership right fervently sought by gun advocates. But the justices indicated less severe limits could survive, continuing disputes over the “right to keep and bear arms.”
Chicago area residents who want handguns for protection in their homes are asking the court to extend its 2008 decision in support of gun rights in Washington, D.C., to state and local laws.
Such a ruling would firmly establish a right that has been the subject of politically charged and often fierce debate for decades. But it also would ensure years of legal challenges to sort out exactly which restrictions may stand and which must fall.
Indeed, the outcome of the Washington lawsuit in 2008 already has spawned hundreds of court challenges, including one in Massachusetts over a state law requiring gun owners to lock weapons in their homes.
Two years ago, the court announced that the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for self-defense in the home. – [source]
Now this is a case i am torn upon because i am in favor of Chicago keeping its ban.
Let me make this clear i am all for guns and gun rights. I own many firearms and am trying to get a CCW in Los Angeles where i live (SFV). But the 10th amendment makes clear that the powers that the federal government do not have are reserved to the states respectivly or to the people. If the court says that the bill of rights which currently applies to only the federal government, applies to the states, it gives the federal government unchecked power in the battle for states rights.
like i said i am torn. in the past there have been other bills that hint that the bill of rights applies to the states but this would cement it in place. It hurts me that i know people WILL die from higher crime rates in chicago because of the gun ban but in the long run the stand for states rights is more important to me.
The people in chicago that dont like the laws reguarding guns should right their reps a letter stating such and then leave the city and perhaps the state to move to one where more freedom is allowed.
This is rights vs responcabilities. If the states have the right to govern themselves then they have the responcability to do so. And must be allowed to do well or fail based on their actions.
Ownership and use of firearms is a right that shall not be infringed, according to the Constitution. (I hate to repeat what everyone has heard, but there are so many who still don’t get it.)
Threfore, states and local governments have no more right to restrict handguns than they do to restrict free speech or to allow slavery.