SCOTUS affirms gun rights in historic decision

[Nafod]

I am afraid I don't get your comment. I did just get back from a run in 90+ degree heat so my brain is a little fried. (My keyboard will be if I keep dropping sweat on it.)

Sorry, i guess i was a tad vague. Im an Illinois resident.

 

[Scoob]

Sorry, i guess i was a tad vague. Im an Illinois resident.

Try DC.

 

[A4sForever]

.... Not everyone with an FFL will do a transfer for random Joe citizen, and having just a few around makes it likely that they can charge an exorbitant fee.

That's true -- but for every dealer that "won't", I've found 1-2 others that "will". And most fees are nominal. Try some firearms websites or other sources for FFL holders in your area that will do the paperwork & transfer. It's out there ...

Most will do the transfer for a nominal fee, in my experience. For example, there's 3 stocking FFL holders w/in a 6 mile radius of my primary residence. They charge $25, $20, and ZERO respectively for a firearms transfer.

Can you guess which one I use???

 

[raptor10]

Those seem like reasonable nominal fees... Out in the DPRK I priced several ffl dealers who were asking 45 - 60 dollars for a transfer on an ar-15 lower receiver... And this was in a gun friendly neck of the woods (relative to californian views on the issue).

 

[A4sForever]

Those seem like reasonable nominal fees... Out in the DPRK I priced several ffl dealers who were asking 45 - 60 dollars for a transfer on an ar-15 lower receiver... And this was in a gun friendly neck of the woods (relative to californian views on the issue).

Sounds like someone is trying to make up for a perceived lost profit margin on that one. I would stay away from any dealer that charges over $35 or so ... they're just trying to profit at your expense for making a phone call to the FEDS. The "record keeping" they might try to justify is in reality a piece of cake if they do their part and keep the records up to date.

*EDIT* .. the guy who charges "zero" probably represents a quid pro quo of sorts, as I've bought many things from him in the past. In any case, he knows how to cultivate future customer loyalty and as a result, if he can meet my needs, that's where I shop. It works for both of us ...

 

[NozeMan]

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicago-tribune/TQI8AJJRASAPGM6CF/p24#lastPost

Join in the fun. "Rob in San Diego" can't be the only AW member representing! It's fun to bash Daley and other Commies!

 

[fc2spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story

+1 to who ever posted the above link. Watching mayor Daley blow a gasket was well worth my time.

I found it interesting

City officials expressed confidence the city would prevail in any court challenge, asserting, among other things, that the 2nd Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government and does not apply to state and local governments.

At what point did they believe in states rights over the central government? News to me.

Darn, day late on that one

 

[nittany03]

At what point did they believe in states rights over the central government? News to me.

Funny. I could have sworn we fought a war over that awhile back . . .

 

[snake020]

Someone who is the civics expert please explain: when a state ratifies the Constitution or a Constitutional amendment, doesn't that mean they are also bound by it?

 

[Zissou]

Someone who is the civics expert please explain: when a state ratifies the Constitution or a Constitutional amendment, doesn't that mean they are also bound by it?

As I understand it: Rights enumerated at the Federal level cannot be invalidated by lesser courts. However there is conflict with the process of incorporation. There may be further litigation on the 14th Amendment.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/constitution.html

But this legal speak is outside my reading comprehension at this point so I'm a poor source on this one.

 

[Rg9]

Re: Bill of Rights and states... How did these people get into a position of power without even having the basic knowledge learned in a high school government class? :icon_rage...

Well... they have a point to some extent. For instance, the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with states. According to it, your state legislature can restrict as much free speech as it wants to (although many states have constitutions reflecting a lot of the US Constitution, including free speech), just as some states initially had state religions (sort of). In that way, religious values could be taught in schools, and it was in no way a violation of the 1st Amendment because it was run by the state and not the federal government. At least that's how it's written...

The way it is currently applied , however, is through the all-encompassing, ever expanding 14th Amendment, which requires that rights be extended to all citizens (in its intent, of course, it was referring to freed slaves). This Amendment has been used to justify basically anything, but some may (and most do) argue that it does require at least certain parts of the Bill of Rights to be extended to the states, such as the 2nd Amendment (just as the 8th Amendment was used to strike down Louisiana's child-rapist-execution law).

As to being bound by the Constitution, yeah a state is bound to it... But like what was said, the Constitution specifically restricts federal activity. So besides the things that the 14th Amendment would imply (which, yes, would include the 2nd Amendment), there is little else to be "bound" by.

On a separate note, would this decision have any implication on carrying weapons on base? It seems like a federal institution, especially when people live on it, would have to be bound to the 2nd Amendment. I understand Constitutional Rights don't always apply and the UCMJ takes precedent, but I guess I don't see why it's forbidden.

 

[Rg9]

As I understand it: Rights enumerated at the Federal level cannot be invalidated by lesser courts. However there is conflict with the process of incorporation. There may be further litigation on the 14th Amendment.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/constitution.html

But this legal speak is outside my reading comprehension at this point so I'm a poor source on this one.

OK, I just read the link and it said a lot of what I said. I'll still stand by my words, though.

 

[wink]

Well... they have a point to some extent. For instance, the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with states. According to it, your state legislature can restrict as much free speech as it wants to (although many states have constitutions reflecting a lot of the US Constitution, including free speech), just as some states initially had state religions (sort of). In that way, religious values could be taught in schools, and it was in no way a violation of the 1st Amendment because it was run by the state and not the federal government. At least that's how it's written...

The way it is currently applied , however, is through the all-encompassing, ever expanding 14th Amendment, which requires that rights be extended to all citizens (in its intent, of course, it was referring to freed slaves). This Amendment has been used to justify basically anything, but some may (and most do) argue that it does require at least certain parts of the Bill of Rights to be extended to the states, such as the 2nd Amendment (just as the 8th Amendment was used to strike down Louisiana's child-rapist-execution law).

As to being bound by the Constitution, yeah a state is bound to it... But like what was said, the Constitution specifically restricts federal activity. So besides the things that the 14th Amendment would imply (which, yes, would include the 2nd Amendment), there is little else to be "bound" by.

On a separate note, would this decision have any implication on carrying weapons on base? It seems like a federal institution, especially when people live on it, would have to be bound to the 2nd Amendment. I understand Constitutional Rights don't always apply and the UCMJ takes precedent, but I guess I don't see why it's forbidden.

There is another legal theory that says incorporation applies under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Constitution. In any case, the basis for incorporation has always been "fundamental fairness". Since 43 states guarantee gun rights and no state flat out prohibits gun ownership, then I suppose on a "fundamental fairness" basis, there is no great rush to incorporate the Second Amendment. Well, except for some. On Friday the
27th, McDonald et al v City of Chicago was filed for the express purpose of forcing incorporation of the Second Amendment and thwarting Chicago's onerous gun ordinances. It was made possible by the Heller decision in DC. Hopefully the McDonald case will move rather quickly since it will be seen as a way to put real meat on the bones of Heller.

 

[Fly Navy]

A city in Illinois has already dropped its defacto ban on hanguns due to the Heller decision. It's already starting to do good work. It would be really nice to see it do some work in CA in regards to the ridiculous bans on certain weapons here, but we'll see.

 

[NozeMan]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-nra-gun-suits-both-jun28,0,5491548.story

As Fly already mentioned, it's having an effect in IL. The NRA isn't just going after Chi-Town, but some suburbs as well. Have fun on the comments pages