Available here. See paragraphs 19-28 for description of which parts of Chicago’s legal regime are being challenged. The National Rifle Association is helping with the funding of the case, but is not a party. Lead attorney is Charles Cooper, so it is certain that the presentation of the plaintiffs’ arguments will be outstanding.
yankee says:
If I were a Chicago resident, I’d be irate about this waste of taxpayer dollars defending another doomed lawsuit. If they must pass a new set of laws, they should pass some that might actually pass muster with SCOTUS.
July 6, 2010, 9:27 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Not to mention by going all the way to one extreme and mimicing the worst (from a gun rights perspective) of available laws nationwide they open the door for a lower court to split the difference to their detriment even if they don’t lose outright rather than just picking the laws from around the nation that aren’t seriously challenged right now and settling for those and let another community take the heat.
Seems like bad tactics.
July 6, 2010, 9:33 pmKharn says:
As a side note, the Aldermen passed the new law 45-0 (44 Democrats, 1 Republican, if you were wondering about the split) with 5 no-votes.
July 6, 2010, 9:34 pmLarryP says:
Question from a layman. Can the SCOTUS hold the mayor and city fathers in contempt? Thanks
July 6, 2010, 9:39 pmAJK says:
Follow-up: Will enough Chicago residents feel that way to abrogate the inevitability of Daley’s reelection? (Who am I kidding?)
July 6, 2010, 9:47 pmMatthew Carberry says:
I’d settle for them and the DC Council being forced to stand in front of Scalia and Alito for an hour facing alternating televised scorn.
July 6, 2010, 9:48 pmwrangler5 says:
Will courts add, change or delete specific words of an ordinance to get to what they think would pass Constitutional muster (like, maybe, restricting carrying to the home is OK but the definition must be expanded to include a garage and patio), or do they just look at a particular section and decide if it’s good or not? (I’ve never been a litigator, and law school was too long ago for me to remember these rules.)
July 6, 2010, 9:48 pmJones' Cell Mate says:
To echo yankee’s point, when I lived in San Francisco they passed an absurd handgun ban and, to my great surprise, TPTB were quite pleased with themselves to have essentially passed a very expensive lawsuit that they knew they couldn’t win. And the best part was that it was only applicable in SF, so it was virtually pointless even if it were upheld.
It’s that kind of “thinking” that gives support to the argument that many of the anti-gun crusaders aren’t completely rational in their efforts. I wonder if they realize that.
July 6, 2010, 9:56 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Inasmuch as they are Making a Statement that makes them Feel better about how Enlightened they are, it is a success in their eyes. Facts, reason and money be damned. =/
July 6, 2010, 10:03 pmht4 says:
I doubt it. It would only encourage this kind of overreaching. If that were the case, a legislature could pass all kinds of impermissible restrictions/prohibitions/procedural obsticals/etc, then let the courts re-write the broadest possible statute.
July 6, 2010, 10:08 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Even now in Sacramento County the Sheriff’s Office has volte-faced and is now encouraging people to apply for concealed carry permits right away.
Couldn’t have anything to do with McDonald and the Calguns lawsuit citing discriminatory issuance moving forward could it?
July 6, 2010, 10:11 pmjuris imprudent says:
This part really stuns me as I thought you only had to bribe a majority in Chicago. Did the rest really go along for free?
July 6, 2010, 10:34 pmFederal Farmer says:
Chicago Alderman are non-partisan.
Also, the other 5 votes were not NO, but were Aldermen not present.
July 6, 2010, 10:38 pmjames says:
I wouldn’t be so sure. According to this it looks more like a ploy to avoid threatened budget cuts. Also, to echo the question LarryP asked, is there anything the courts can do when legislatures and executives intentionally violate their rulings?
July 6, 2010, 10:43 pmAJK says:
While the elections are non-partisan, the aldermen do indeed have party affiliations. And I think you misinterpreted no-votes as “no” votes.
July 6, 2010, 10:44 pmKivo says:
“Lead attorney is Charles Cooper, so it is certain that the presentation of the plaintiffs’ arguments will be outstanding.” — The very same Charles Cooper who doomed Proposition 8 by calling “expert” witnesses whose sole source of expertise on marriage was a masters thesis on 19th century cabinetmakers unions?
July 6, 2010, 10:45 pmFederal Farmer says:
I was there in Council Chambers and no one said ‘no’. Also, I saw at least one empty chair where Ald. Bernie Stone sits, so I know at least one was not there. I heard at least another was not there.
July 6, 2010, 10:55 pmDanInAustin says:
Of course the 45 alderman that voted to prevent the peasants from owning guns can already own and carry a handgun due to their political office.
July 6, 2010, 11:06 pmAJK says:
I’m saying that by no-votes, he means that they entered no vote, not that they voted “no”
July 6, 2010, 11:08 pmFederal Farmer says:
ah gotcha, thanks, my bad.
July 6, 2010, 11:54 pmLarryA says:
So paragraphs 14 to 17 are basically a list of people who need to be cited for contempt of SCOTUS?
And “ability to be concealed” makes a handgun unsafe? That took gall.
You can’t make this stuff up.
July 7, 2010, 12:32 amjmaie says:
Question from a layman. Can the SCOTUS hold the mayor and city fathers in contempt? Thanks
If they can’t, I can.
I feel a little bad taking the easy cheap shot, but nobody else got to it first ;<)
July 7, 2010, 1:48 amMark N. says:
An interesting tension with federalism and local control, here. It seems quite clear what Chicago’s residents and their representatives want, by a quite overwhelming margin, but they ain’t gonna get it.
July 7, 2010, 2:16 amMatthew Carberry says:
The prejudice of the majority can’t trump the fundamental civil rights of the minority, even in Chicago.
July 7, 2010, 2:23 amAJK says:
Which don’t you understand — the Bill of Rights, or the Fourteenth Amendment?
July 7, 2010, 3:00 amStephen Lathrop says:
I’m not an anti-gun crusader, or anti-gun at all, but if anti-gun people aren’t completely rational, that merely brings balance to the debate, because neither are pro-gun people. And irrational people with guns really are kind of frightening.
Contrary to guns rights dogma, plenty of violent-tempered, or irresponsible, or drunk, or insane, or vengeful, or reckless people, all non-criminals, or not-yet-criminals, have guns. Fearing that may be irrational, but so is supporting it without reservation.
Dogmatic positions, overbearing positions, contemptuous positions—none of those advance the cause of gun rights. Because all of them reinforce the notion, irrational or not, that gun rights advocates are armed and dangerous. Obviously, that is exactly the impression many gun rights advocates intend. And in that intention they confuse the dynamics of personal confrontation—which don’t apply—with the dynamics of politics, which work differently. In politics, the more people you intimidate, the less intimidated their political response is likely to be.
July 7, 2010, 4:24 amMike C. says:
I’d like a serious answer to that question as well. Has SCOTUS every held anybody in contempt ? Not a lawyer here, so I don’t know.
July 7, 2010, 6:26 amsofa says:
Another example: Is local slavery is ok, if the local/city/county/state majority want it?
July 7, 2010, 7:01 amXenocles says:
“Contrary to guns rights dogma, plenty of violent-tempered, or irresponsible, or drunk, or insane, or vengeful, or reckless people, all non-criminals, or not-yet-criminals, have guns.”
Isn’t this central to the “dogma?” The idea is that since it’s inevitable that those people will get guns (plus criminals), more benign people need to have legitimate access too.
July 7, 2010, 7:02 amcboldt says:
– Dogmatic positions, overbearing positions, contemptuous positions–none of those advance the cause of gun rights. Because all of them reinforce the notion, irrational or not, that gun rights advocates are armed and dangerous. –
July 7, 2010, 7:14 amNot that I agree with the sentiment, but it cuts exactly the same way after substituting “gun rights opponents” for “gun rights advocates.”
Anticipating a possible objection to “gun rights opponents” are not armed and dangerous, if they are not armed and dangerous, how can they strip arms from their (gun rights advocate) opponents?
Seems to me the gun rights opponents are misrepresenting their capability to project force.
At any rate, asserting dogmatic and overbearing positions can be effective, even when the positions are based on falsehood. The gun grabbers made substantial advancement via dogmatic, overbearing, and contemptuous positions.
cboldt says:
– Has SCOTUS every held anybody in contempt? –
July 7, 2010, 7:52 amNot for failure to follow a ruling. The orders from SCOTUS are to other Courts, not to parties in action. I don’t of a single case of one court holding another court in contempt, with the substance of the action being the disposition of a formal dispute.
SCOTUS may have rebuked a member of the audience for failure to maintain decorum, and issued a contempt finding from the bench. I don’t know of any such case offhand.
cboldt says:
Man … I was wrong about SCOTUS never initiating a contempt proceeding …
http://www.ncbar.org/cle/programs/662br2.aspx
July 7, 2010, 8:04 amcboldt says:
The Trial of Sheriff Joseph F. Shipp et al.
July 7, 2010, 8:21 amRiveting story, well told.
Shipp was convicted of criminal contempt, and was sentenced to 90 days in jail.
Stephen Lathrop says:
A point well made it seems to me. But made into the teeth of customary gun rights advocacy, which asserts to high heaven that unlimited gun prevalence comes without danger to the public, and indeed increases public safety.
You can’t have it both ways, and one problem for gun rights advocacy is that many people don’t want guns around their households, often for very good reasons. For instance, a person suffering chronic depression might not trust himself with a gun around. There are plenty of other good reasons, including a virtuous preference for non-violence in your own life, conscientious objection to taking another’s life even at the risk of your own, doubts about whether producing a gun in an emergency might heighten danger to you, doubts about your competence to use a gun effectively, and concern about those factors and others with regard to other people in your household.
For those people, all the arguments in favor of self-defense go out the window, and increased gun prevalence certainly can mean increased personal danger. If the guy next door is an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic—who has recently been muttering that he knows you work for the FBI and the CIA (but it doesn’t worry him, because he knows God will judge you)—no amount of increased responsible gun ownership in the populace at large is going to offset the danger to you of giving that guy a pistol.
Many people living in big cities find themselves in exactly that sort of situation, or indeed find it impossible to judge what sort of situation they do live in. For them, it’s hardly unreasonable to prefer that the people living nearby be subject to some kind of supervision with regard to the guns they can have, their competence, and responsibility to use them.
The logic of some gun rights advocacy, the kind that brooks no restrictions (except on known criminals and incompetents), really boils down to an assertion that everybody ought to have a gun, and carry it all the time. I’m not sure advocates of that sort understand what a pickle they put people in who don’t want guns in their own lives. I am sure that for many who won’t be armed, the end result of such a regime would not be increased personal safety.
July 7, 2010, 8:27 amcboldt says:
– The logic of some gun rights advocacy, the kind that brooks no restrictions (except on known criminals and incompetents), really boils down to an assertion that everybody ought to have a gun, and carry it all the time. I’m not sure advocates of that sort understand what a pickle they put people in who don’t want guns in their own lives. I am sure that for many who won’t be armed, the end result of such a regime would not be increased personal safety. –
July 7, 2010, 8:41 amI suppose Kennesaw, Georgia, where by law all households must have a gun, represents the sort of “mandatory advocacy” that you describe. And possession was also mandatory under early federal militia laws. Neither of those demands “everybody, carry all the time.” In short, I don’t find any gun rights advocates in the mold that you’ve described. Not one.
I’m fine with some people preferring to be defenseless, either out of irrational fears or conscientious pacifism. My objection is strongest toward those who tend toward mandatory disarmament (no guns – no carry, except for the connected and powerful).
Stephen Lathrop says:
Cboldt, I presume you recognize the anarchistic tendency in your remark, and choose it deliberately.
July 7, 2010, 8:52 amcboldt says:
– Cboldt, I presume you recognize the anarchistic tendency in your remark, and choose it deliberately. –
July 7, 2010, 8:59 amYes. I chose the remark deliberately. And I suppose you recognize the elitist, statist and tyrannical tendencies in your remarks, as well.
OrenWithAnE says:
Commenters on this blog repeatedly and perversely believe that gun control is something imposed against the will of the Chicago populace — that it is Daley’s perverse desire to trample their rights. All rational evidence suggests that Daley is a (consummate) politician and pursues anti-gun policies because they are wildly popular with his constituency. The unanimous vote in the city council reflects that overwhelming support.
[ Just for form, I want to remind readers that I support the RKBA and I don't believe the majority has the right to pass such a ordinance. The 2A/14A all function to restrain the majority. That said, the comments about "peasants" strike me as absurd to the highest degree. ]
July 7, 2010, 9:42 amJSL says:
Well, here’s another way of looking at that. There are all types of people in the world, and we all share a common trait. We all think our “neighbors” are less intelligent, less sane, and more of a potential threat than we are. That means your “neighbor” more than likely thinks likewise. We all have to learn to work around that tendency in ourselves.
Here’s my perspective. I grew up in a house full of guns, as did my father, his father, and going forward, my children and more than likely their children as well. I own around 50 guns, many of which are older and have been handed down to me. I do not carry a gun around all the time for self defense, although I usually keep a small handgun in my vehicle. I enjoy hunting. I go to the range occasionally and shoot, with the kids, and/or my wife, and/or some friends, but 95% of the time all my guns are sitting benignly in a safe.
That said, I understand that some people choose not to own guns. As you say, there are plenty people who have their reasons, however in my view those reasons boil down to two things: fear, or a feeling of moral superiority. While my “neighbors” may look at me and see a potentially dangerous person with too many guns, I look at them and my educated guess is that they either have irrational fears, or they are “holier than thou” types. However, I do not wish to force them to be more like me, even while I think they are somewhat disillusioned and irrational.
I live close to a big city with a big city crime rate, and I go there frequently for fun. I go there unarmed for the most part, other than a gun in my vehicle which is legal. I spend money there. I am not afraid to go into the city because there is more crime there than where I live. The people who live in the city often have different views than I do. My favorite example is about car theft. My friends who live in the city have often suggested to me that if I park here or there and don’t have a car alarm or some theft deterrent device that I am asking for my car to be stolen. When someone’s car is stolen there, they tend to blame the owner of the car for being an idiot. My opinion is that if I park my car in the city and leave the keys in it and the windows down and someone steals it, it is not my fault. After all, I do not steal other people’s cars regardless of how they are left or where they are parked because stealing cars is wrong. I expect other people not to steal mine. However, this kind of “city thinking” is prevalent among people who live in big cities everywhere, and it leads to all sorts of absurdities.
This mentality is why the term “sheeple” exists. Many people in big cities much prefer to live as sheep. I do not. I do not think of myself as a wolf out to take advantage of sheep either. I am perfectly fine with sheeple, until they wish to force me to live as one too. I have a different personality. I carry a knife almost everywhere I go and use it daily – as a tool, and I think nothing of it. There are many people in the world who are afraid of knives and will not have one themselves, especially a sharp one. These people to me are just silly, but if they wish to battle modern clamshell packaging with only their grubby little fingers, or bite pieces of string, so be it. So long as these people who are afraid of knives do not try to force me to share in and validate their fears, then I have no issue with them.
I will roof my own house, fix my own car, shoot the armadillo that digs up my yard, and cut rope with a sharp knife in a world full of people who cannot, will not or are afraid to do such things. I only ask that they let me be who I am. If there were no people like me, then there would be no one to meet many of their needs either. Diversity is a good thing, and it doesn’t just mean someone has a different color skin.
July 7, 2010, 9:42 amcboldt says:
– anti-gun policies … are wildly popular with [the Chicago populace] … The unanimous vote in the city council reflects that overwhelming support. –
July 7, 2010, 10:03 amPublic sentiment is not reflected in the 100%-0% poll taken at the city council. I don’t know of a city-only poll; but nationwide polls show a close split – similar to the split in the 1860′s over the power to ban owning slaves.
geokstr says:
Unlikely. Since at least the 1960 election, legions of reliable Democratic, reliably dead people have been voting for the parade of Daleys. Since many more Chicagoans have gone deceased since then, they’ve probably also been added to the Democratic registration rolls, regardless of how they happened to vote in real life. The SEIU will drag their carcasses to the polls on election day.
How else does one family and their Lewinskyite hangers-on get elected with overwhelming Stalinesque/Saddamish vote totals year after year? Unless you pull a Zelaya/Chavez and count the votes before the election, that is.
More on-topic, I thought all lawyers, even the leftists, just loved the constitution, and believed that whence SCOTUS spake, all must follow. But it looks like if you’re a leftist, when SCOTUS rules against you, you just have to change a few meaningless clauses in the law in question, claim you’ve complied, and continue with business as usual. Since you know it takes years to wend new lawsuits up the legal food chain, you can do whatever you like, pretty much forever. Rinse and repeat every ten years or so.
And I’ll second Mike C’s question, while also wondering why he can’t get an answer here – does SCOTUS have the capability to enforce its rulings, at least with contempt citations, or is this all just more kabuki theater?
July 7, 2010, 10:06 amcboldt says:
– does SCOTUS have the capability to enforce its rulings, at least with contempt citations, or is this all just more kabuki theater? –
July 7, 2010, 10:16 amIn this case, it’s all theater. The courts and parties are complying with the rulings.
If the Supreme Court wanted a different result, it would have said so. See Bush v. Gore back and forth, where the Supreme Court of Florida told the Supreme Court of the US to buzz off; until the last SCOTUS ruling removed the cloud of ambiguity.
Joe says:
The new law has various sections which probably are not all unconstitutional. The law seems to be an interesting way to add teeth to Heller, to clarify just what and what is not allowed under its dictates.
For instance, the challenge is concerned that the training required to own a firearm is not available nearby. Is this required by the 14A? What about ownership by those under 21? The number of weapons allowed? Limits on sale and distribution. And so forth.
But, these comments seem of a general character, the specific aspects of the law for some later date.
July 7, 2010, 10:44 amFederal Farmer says:
I’ve spoken with quite a few residents (by no means any significant number) and to most the issue has been lower priority than other issues. A recent string of high profile (meaning the media actually printed the stories) instances of armed homeowners defending themselves has brought the issue to the forefront.
July 7, 2010, 10:45 amMany I have spoken to are scofflaws with respect to the gun ordinance and don’t speak out on the issue for fear of a visit by the CAGE unit.
OrenWithAnE says:
And by no means a representative sample, I gather as well. It is a cliche on this site that liberals have an aversion to guns. Lots of liberals live in Chicago.
My guess (having lived in Chicago for a while) would be 70-30 in favor of a complete ban on handguns. Maybe 65-35 at best.
July 7, 2010, 10:52 amFederal Farmer says:
I’ve spoken to people in pretty much all neighborhoods. Not unsurprising, those living in the ‘war’ zones are usually in favor of gun ownership. Many keep guns despite the ordinance because they’ve chosen self-protection over a misdemeanor. These are ‘liberal’ voters. This is one reason I always try to steer 2A discussions away from partisan politics. There are quite a few conservative statists…not sure how many compared to liberal statists.
Last December a newcaster in Chicago (Chuck Goudy) followed a few people home after they left a gun shop in a suburb and accosted them at their doors asking if they’d illegally brought a gun into the city. One turned out to be a security guard. The other was an elderly black woman who lived in a terrible neighborhood (crime data indicated many murders and other violent crime in the area and no arrests). My wife and I visited with her. She wanted to replace her .32 caliber pistol that was stolen. She didn’t want to be identified or receive any further attention. She hadn’t brought a pistol home but planned to.
July 7, 2010, 11:02 amElliot says:
That is not an irrational fear, but it is irrational to ignore the records in the 40(?) states that have adopted “shall issue” concealed carry laws. The forecast carnage in the streets did no happen after the laws were in force. Not even in one state.
However, those fears persist in many people, and I would tag them as irrational because they contradict the record.
Chicago’s problem is somewhat contained, but unspoken in polite conversation. Black gangs shoot each other and don’t care about gun laws.
July 7, 2010, 11:15 amOrenWithAnE says:
Absolutely.
OTOH, most of those living the posh neighborhoods of the loop/near-north-side, the gold coast, Lincoln, Wrigleyville, Ravenswood, Rogers Park and all the other gentrified yuppie neighborhoods are averse to guns. There are more of them and they vote more often.
July 7, 2010, 11:38 amSCOTUSblog » Wednesday round-up says:
[...] and journalists continue to dissect the implications of many of the Term’s decisions. At the Volokh Conspiracy, David Kopel has a post on a lawsuit challenging the new gun control laws enacted in Chicago in the [...]
July 7, 2010, 11:44 amSCOTUSblog » Wednesday round-up says:
[...] and journalists continue to dissect the implications of many of the Term’s decisions. At the Volokh Conspiracy, David Kopel has a post on a lawsuit challenging the new gun control laws enacted in Chicago in the [...]
July 7, 2010, 11:44 amcboldt says:
Looking for something that resembles a poll of Chicago residents, and ran into a TIME magazine article.
July 7, 2010, 11:45 amThe public perception, which might be reflected in polls, is influenced by propaganda, as well.
2nd Amendment Supersedes Local Gun-Control Laws By Adam Cohen – Tuesday, Jun. 29, 2010
cboldt says:
The article has a conclusion that I agree with, except I’d replace “could” with “would” as far as stripping an individual right.
July 7, 2010, 11:47 amFederal Farmer says:
I know a few folks in those neighborhoods that are not averse, but I suspect a majority of them are at least ambivalent.
Those ‘hoods are also pretty mixed racially so I think it is less a racial issue and more a bit of uplifted nose syndrome and naivety.
July 7, 2010, 11:51 amDonP. says:
“Daley is a (consummate) politician and pursues anti-gun policies because they are wildly popular with his constituency. The unanimous vote in the city council reflects that overwhelming support.”
“Oren with an E”
Very nice but a somewhat “Ivory Tower” description of what is essentially an utterly corrupt city management operation.
Please keep in mind that 26 aldermen have gone to the Federal Pokey in the last 15 years, just to give you a general idea on the character and quality of these “peoples representatives”. Another ten to 12 major department heads, the ones that have not fled the country, have also been convicted.
Based on over 50 years of semi-adult, direct observation, from the 19th Ward and the 22nd Police District, it’s more like this …
Daley is a consummate political boss, cut from 19th century broadcloth in a style not seen elsewhere since the 1930′s, with close to total control over the municipal jobs (The Shakman decree is treated as a bad Henny Youngman quality joke in the city) in each ward and absolute control over the distribution of campaign funds and, more importantly, city services to the wards.
One brother sits on, and de facto controls, the Cook County Board with its multi Billion $ budget and no bid contracts. That’s why Todd Stroger is being put out to pasture and a more “Daley Loyal” Board President is taking over. Another brother coincidentally runs an insurance firm that handles the majority of the city’s insurance and union needs.
The city Council has been a reliable rubber stamp for Daley for over a decade and a half, when the last “independent” alderman retired. They are seldom if ever challenged in a primary, there is no functioning opposition party in Cook County or Chicago. The city council accurately reflects the way Daley feels about issues, not necessarily the voters in their ward.
Sadly, a large portion of the voting public, those above ground at least, are focused on their immediate day-to-day needs and cast votes for what they are assured by their aldermen are in their best interests.
Daley has every intention of playing the McDonald case out again and again using tax money to finance his personal crusade as a delaying action until his retirement, which in Chicago mayoral tradition tends to be abrupt, chaotic and involve emergency room physicians.
His behavior pattern bears a very strong resemblance to his father’s approach to integration. The only difference is he hasn’t found off duty city officials to hit Gura in the head with a brick yet, the way “Dear old Dad” did with Martin Luther King Jr. in Marquette Park in the ’60′s.
July 7, 2010, 11:57 amJSL says:
I’d happily go along with that and hand all my guns over to the state so long as it was decided that ALL the BOR apply to states and not to individuals. When you look at it in that context you see the absurdity of it.
July 7, 2010, 11:59 ammack says:
In Chicago – (excluding a very few precincts) – there are no real general elections – the real elections are in the democratic primaries and due to the low vote totals in primaries – the democratic machine can reliably handpick (again with very few exceptions) the candidates by turning out the faithful through the patronage system. The citizens are culpable in this, as they do not turn out to vote for primaries and as they will not vote for a candidate who does not have democrat listed after their name on the ballot. So really the dead vote and the illegal immigrant vote are not that essential to getting politicians elected in Chicago. Where the dead vote and the illegal vote are important are in statewide elections to ensure that democrats maintain control of statewide offices, including the two US Senate seats. The number of voters in Chicago and Cook county area have increased vs. the number of voters for the rest of the state in just the last decade making it harder and harder for any republican or third party candidate to get elected to statewide office. In an effort to remain a viable party in Illinois republican candidates north of I-80 in the collar counties surrounding cook county have resorted to becoming the Rino party (republicans in name only who support much of the same policies endorsed by the democrats). Conservative or libertarian candidates have their base of support in central and southern Illinois – thus the real divide in Illinois politics is not democrat vs. republican so much as Chicago area vs. downstate. Both democratic and republican parties are controlled by politicians out of Chicago and the Chicago collar counties respectively.
The gun control debate is a divisive issue in Illinois and the reliably anti-gun sentiment of Chicago voters has had seen some erosion of late. At recent CCW law forums, (the pro-ccw forces in the state have started having public forums on the issue to develop more grass-roots support through education, discussion, and debate), have seen a growing number of Chicagoans and Chicago area voters who are beginning to change their mind on the issue. This is likely due to education combined with the publics growing frustration with the cities ineffectiveness in dealing with violent crime. I believe this mirrors a national trend towards a greater public acceptance of guns and gun rights – especially the right to self defense.
So I do quibble with the idea that a 45 to 0 vote truly reflects the sentiments of Chicago citizens and that the mayor and the city council are just playing good politics with their vote on the new gun law. While a majority of the citizens of Chicago proper no doubt do support banning or heavily restricting guns – it is a weaker majority than in the past and it is a majority who do not see guns or gun control as a top priority issue. The top priority issues are jobs, drugs, gangs, and violence – and they do not see gun control as being able to significantly impact gangs or gang violence.
As for the politics being played – Daley and the democrats in Chicago are not using the gun issue to win elections because gun control is popular with their constituents’ – rather they are trying to use the gun control issue to deflect criticism in regards to their inability of deal effectively with the gang and violent crime problem. So far, that seems not to be working so well.
Lastly, the primary reason for the vote and new gun law legislation is simply that Daley and the leaders in the democratic party in Chicago – really do believe in gun control – Daley and the members of the city council do not trust or respect the citizens of Chicago or the state of Illinois to have guns. Daley is vehement on the issue and even if he were to lose votes over it he would still support gun control.
The fact of the matter is that if Daley ever wanted to, he could change his position on the gun issue 180 degrees and not materially suffer in terms of his election prospects. This is true for pretty much all pro gun control advocates nationwide. Support for gun control, however wide, is not that deep – gun control supporters for the most part are not single issue voters and/or the issue of gun control is not usually a critical factor in determining the ultimate choice of who to vote for, for gun control supporters. The same is not true when it comes to RKBA advocates – there single issue voters are common and the support is much deeper and growing wider.
This new gun control law and vote is just Daley’s desire to continue to deny and inconvenience as much as possible gun owner’s and RKBA advocates. The city council is Daley’s handpicked rubber stamp and members would only oppose him on minor issues of disagreement between liberal democratic views within the party – gun control is not one of those issues.
July 7, 2010, 12:01 pmJSL says:
Be that as it may, if 65% to 70% of the citizens of Chicago happened to support eliminating freedom of speech so that their fellow citizens would not offend them anymore, the other 30%-35% of Chicago’s citizens would still enjoy freedom of speech. Unless of course, freedom of speech only applies to members of the state or local government.
July 7, 2010, 12:12 pmLarryA says:
Gun rights opponents are armed. They expect law enforcement to use firearms to strip arms from their opponents, so the gun-grabbers don’t have to get their own hands dirty. And it’s just fine for the gun rights opponents to employ armed security officers and bodyguards to protect them from the peons.
Except there’s no moral difference between shooting someone and paying another person to shoot someone.
These polls are always interesting. I remember a more comprehensive one (not online). It started with a similar question, “Should there be more gun control?” When a respondent answered affirmatively it followed up with questions about what laws should be added. Many of the responses were on the order of, “A background check should be required before you can buy a handgun” or “Drug users shouldn’t be able to buy a gun.” IOW laws that were already in effect.
More recently Bill O’Reilly was quoted as saying: If these liberal jurists really cared about gun control, they would urge Congress to pass a law making all gun crimes federal offenses with mandatory prison sentences of 10 years. That would mean any thug who carried a gun illegally or used one to commit a crime would be facing a 10-year stretch on top of whatever else he or she had done.
It’s been against the law for most “thugs” to possess a firearm since the 1930s. Of course the penalty is only five years per firearm and cartridge, but…
IMHO one of the main effects of Heller and McDonald, and now the Chicago response, is to educate fence-sitters as to what “reasonable gun law” means to the anti-gun folks.
July 7, 2010, 12:39 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Of course, but that doesn’t change the fact.
I think it comes from a genuine desire to reduce the impact of violence. People in those neighborhoods receive fairly good and prompt service from the police, they suffer minimal life-endangering crime (and take the view that deadly force to prevent petty property crime is disproportionate, one that I agree with) and so quite logically oppose guns.
I do not begrudge those with which I disagree their views. I don’t think it’s naivety either — in their experience guns are not necessary except in the commission of crimes.
You have completely and utterly misattributed to me the view that the Chicago Aldermen have high moral character or are of particular legislative quality. I have said nothing of the sort. I agree completely that the city government is a hopelessly corrupt one.
I have only said that this government (corrupt or otherwise) most certainly represents the super-majority of its constituents when it pushes for draconian (and unconstitutional) restrictions on firearms.
Be that as it may, most of them vote for Aldermen (and Mayors) that support gun control. You can’t begrudge them a political view.
You have to read the entire comment thread, from the beginning.
July 7, 2010, 12:56 pmzippypinhead says:
Procedural questions only a lawyer could love: Has a motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction to prohibit the enforcement of some or all of the challenged portions of the ordinance pending a full hearing on the merits also been filed?
Second: Although I didn’t parse the ordinance sections listed in the complaint’s prayer for relief to see what the plaintiffs are NOT challenging, I assume the entirety of the ordinance isn’t at issue? That would be good lawyering, IMHO – you don’t necessarily want to block the entire enactment, because the new ordinance on its face supersedes the previous handgun ban. To enjoin the entire ordinance would mean the handgun ban remains in effect until there’s eventually a final, non-appealable judgment on remand in McDonald some number of years down the road?
Finally: was a related case designation (with McDonald) filed? If so, will that be followed by a motion to consolidate? Any thoughts as to the tactical advantages/disadvantages of attempting to formally tie Benson to McDonald?
July 7, 2010, 1:14 pmcboldt says:
– Of course, but that doesn’t change the fact. –
July 7, 2010, 1:15 pmAgreed. The poll result is what it is. But conditioning a population with false propaganda and promises (or buying their support, as Daley does with his puppet council) colors the impact of the assertion that “anti-gun policies … are wildly popular with [the public]. The unanimous vote in the city council reflects that overwhelming support.”
OrenWithAnE says:
I guess that goes to the heart of the democratic process. If you can convince a majority with “false propaganda”* you can (barring some constitutional provision to the contrary) pass legislation to that end. The Framers believed that, for most matters not explicitly placed outside the bounds of the legislature by explicit guarantee, the populace would sort things out for the better.
* Again, I don’t begrudge them this view except to note that I disagree with it. “False propaganda” as a term seems semantically equivalent to “argument towards a conclusion with which I disagree”.
July 7, 2010, 1:39 pmsardonic_sob says:
They didn’t hold anybody in Arkansas in contempt, even when they voted 9-0 to hold that their decision must be implemented “with all deliberate speed.”
However, I think I’d rather deal with a few Federal Marshals than the National Guard. Nobody will go to jail, I’m betting, but you can only defy the SCOTUS so long before somebody gets very, very firm.
Besides, if Daley’s committing a serious Federal felony under a set of facts that no one, including him, disputes, didn’t get anybody sent to jail, passing stupid-ass laws sure isn’t gonna do it.
July 7, 2010, 1:49 pmDilan Esper says:
Public sentiment is not reflected in the 100%-0% poll taken at the city council. I don’t know of a city-only poll; but nationwide polls show a close split — similar to the split in the 1860’s over the power to ban owning slaves.
Silly comparison, but that said, considering I live in a major city, I have no doubt that gun restrictions are very popular in many major cities, just as they are very unpopular in many rural areas.
Seriously, if we weren’t having an ideological fight here, would ANYONE disagree with the proposition that, say, a gun control law is more likely to be popular in Chicago than in Billings, MT?
July 7, 2010, 1:53 pmsardonic_sob says:
A lot of what Mayor Daley does which at first seems irrational becomes quite logical when you understand that he thinks everyone is as corrupt and evil as he is. Not only is it purely in his self-interest to ensure that as few people in Chicago are armed as possible and that the ones that are are overwhelmingly beholden to him, he thinks that if the general populace were armed, they’d act like he’d act if he were poor, desperate, and armed. Whatever remains of his soul, acting on this assumption, honestly believes that it *is* in the public good to keep arms out of their hands.
July 7, 2010, 1:54 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Conversely, for the liberals, very dispute that laws against abortion/sodomy are more likely to be popular in Texas than Vermont. That we cannot even acknowledge our ideological differences is truly disturbing.
Conversely, the pro-gun folks here and elsewhere to not trust or respect the citizens of Chicago to legislate for themselves.
Of course, that was the entire purpose of the 14A — that Congress did not trust the States not to violate the rights of the citizens. In the ~150 years since, they have been vindicated a million times over.
July 7, 2010, 2:01 pmcboldt says:
– “False propaganda” as a term seems semantically equivalent to “argument towards a conclusion with which I disagree”. –
July 7, 2010, 2:03 pmI meant it in the sense of writings that contain assertions that are objectively false. The Federalist papers are propaganda; the TIME magazine article linked is false propaganda where it asserts a 200 year old collective rights consensus.
cboldt says:
– the heart of the democratic process. –
July 7, 2010, 2:05 pmTwo wolves and one sheep voting on “what’s for lunch.”
Dilan Esper says:
Another example:
Two of the biggest supporters of gun control in Congress are Senators Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer. Schumer used to represent New York City in the House, and Feinstein was Mayor of San Francisco. Is this a coincidence, or does that, perhaps, say something about the viewpoints in those cities about gun control?
Look, I can see the arguments as to why the Chicago gun laws are unconstitutional. But unpopular? Only someone totally unfamiliar with big city political opinions on this issue would say that.
July 7, 2010, 2:15 pmFederal Farmer says:
I’ll grant that gun control is more popular in Chicago (and especially northern suburbs) than downstate. I won’t say they are wildly popular. Most people haven’t really thought much about this issue, in my experience. I know my wife was in that category, until the moment she was face-to-face with 3 home invaders and the ‘force imbalance’ hit home. She realized she’d have felt much better holding a handgun and a cell phone than just a cell phone. Especially given that the police did not respond until she called me and I called my Alderman.
July 7, 2010, 2:21 pmI recall two 911 incidents last year, one in IN and one in IL. The lady in IL had a cell phone and an order of protection while the lady in IN had those and a .38. Guess which one is still alive.
Matthew Carberry says:
I’m not sure how much weight to give to the opinions of most big city residents, particularly those in sheltered communities, on gun control or gun rights. Given the media that serve those markets and the constant barrage of tripe from their elected leadership on the subject they haven’t gotten the facts (or even a remotely fair picture of the opposing viewpoint) on the issue for decades.
At best they are wildly uninformed (at worst actively misinformed) about the facts on the ground in places that don’t have restrictive gun control laws (shall issue, no licensing/registration, no magazine/assault bans) and ignorant of the best available (Kleck, Levitt, NIJ, CDC) science while the VPC and Brady pseudo-studies, “Google science” and utterly risable claims are passed on to them and echoed without challenge by the credulous media.
July 7, 2010, 2:50 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Statements about historical consensus are not positivist, they cannot be true or false in an objective sense. One cites evidence, one side can have the better argument but ultimately they are not falsifiable in any real sense of the word.
Everyone looks at history — even the same history — and concludes what he will conclude — there is no precise formula on how to weigh evidence for or against a historical proposition. Most debates on history amount to each side making a mountain of the evidence in favor of their point and a molehill of the contrary evidence.
Pretty much this.
One commonly hears that city-folk are “out of touch” with rural America but very little on the reverse, which is equally true. This is a neat rhetorical trick, intended to portray the latter as in some sense more genuine than the former.
They may not be wildly popular but its electoral suicide to campaign in the north suburbs of Chicago on a platform of gun’s rights.
I’m such how much weight to give to their opinion — just as much as we give any other citizen. One man, one vote and all that. Of course, if we give neither citizen any such weight because the matter is not properly before the legislature — as is the case with the unreasonable restrictions on the 2A/14A by the CCC — that’s fine by me too.
What I absolutely will not tolerate is the idea that some citizens’ opinions are less weighty that others based on the convenient contrivances of the speaker. If your fellow citizens believe “incorrectly” (which is to say they disagree with you, of course from their point of view you are clearly incorrect) then you ought to respect their difference of opinion as a matter of basic civility.
[ I'll repeat once again that the 2A/14A places unreasonable restrictions on firearms beyond the reach of the majority. That said, respect for their opinion is distinct from whether our particular system of government allows the majority to enact it into law. ]
July 7, 2010, 4:43 pmBT says:
For those of you who like to bash our beloved Mayor Daley–just a thought. Who would you replace him with? Rahm Emanuel? JJ Jackson Jr.? Federal Farmer? (: Serously, the devil known. The choices for replacement in this town go from bad to worse. Long live Daley, and just for the record, I never vote from him.
July 7, 2010, 4:45 pmFederal Farmer says:
I’d do it but I can’t take the pay cut.
July 7, 2010, 4:51 pmFederal Farmer says:
Electoral suicide is often only a few percentage points from winning. In some areas the real race is in the primary, so obviously the general is an exception for those districts.
July 7, 2010, 4:56 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Oren,
In the case of Chicagoans uninformed opinions being privately held, or affecting only policies that directly impact themselves, I have no argument.
It gets problematic when, on an issue involving a fundamental right, those patently uninformed opinions are used to generate policies that will directly affect my or other informed people’s exercise thereof.
I don’t really have a dog in Chicago’s fight, other than the wider 2nd A. precedents it might set, and I don’t know that there’s a realistic solution to the larger problem of uninformed voters in any event.
After all I’m hardly a genius; even in the topics in which I’m fairly well informed there’s always more to learn as more and better evidence arises. In most things I’m almost certainly a pot doing some name calling.
It just rubs me the wrong way to have to hear the same arguments and positions, dismissed by those who are informed and have intellectual integrity on both sides of the issue, repeated over and over by folks (leaders and media) with agendas aimed at interfering with my harmless exercise who then buttress their position with opinion polls of people who for the most part don’t know the facts (raw data and studies thereof) but only feelings and falsehoods.
My idealistically nonsensical side I guess.
July 7, 2010, 5:09 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Be that as it may, there is no electoral structure under which a RKBA candidate wins.
It is folly to assume that people with which you disagree are uninformed as opposed to perhaps informed but drawing the opposite conclusion from the available evidence. It leads to a sort of ideological totalitarianism in which not only does one advocate a view but one is deluded into believing that it is so plainly evident that those that don’t hold must be stupid or malevolent (or both).
I regret that it seems we are quickly approaching the latter point in our nation’s politics.
Well, to the extent that it’s a fundamental right then it doesn’t matter what anyone, informed or otherwise, thinks about it. A fundamental right is beyond public opinion.
This is assuming the conclusion, however, when the disagreement is about whether the RKBA is fundamental and to what actual exercise does it extend.
July 7, 2010, 5:22 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Be that as it may, there is no electoral structure under which a RKBA candidate wins.
It is folly to assume that people with which you disagree are uninformed as opposed to perhaps informed but drawing the opposite conclusion from the available evidence. It leads to a sort of ideological totalitarianism in which not only does one advocate a view but one is deluded into believing that it is so plainly evident that those that don’t hold must be stupid or malevolent (or both).
I regret that it seems we are quickly approaching the latter point in our nation’s politics.
Well, to the extent that it’s a fundamental right then it doesn’t matter what anyone, informed or otherwise, thinks about it. A fundamental right is beyond public opinion.
This is assuming the conclusion, however, when the disagreement is about whether the RKBA is fundamental and to what actual exercise does it extend.
July 7, 2010, 5:22 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Oren,
I am not a fan of the polarization of politics, on most issues there is room for people of good will to honestly disagree.
However, if there is evidence that meets any recognized scientific or statistical standard that even suggests, much less clearly supports, the idea that any of the suggested gun restrictions in Chicago that exceed the minimum Federal or loosest state restrictions extant accomplish or even approach accomplishing any Constitutionally-compelling government interest (safety/crime reduction) I’d be happy to consider it. There apparently isn’t because it has yet to be presented and hold up to scrutiny.
There are cases in public policy where in fact one side is simply wrong and doesn’t have a factual argument to stand on, there is no intellectually valid contrary “interpretation” of the data to be made. Certainly not to the level of driving policy on what even “might” be a Constitutionally enumerated right in good faith.
July 7, 2010, 5:46 pmPrior of Kingsbiridge says:
Today I didn’t have enough time to go to the FBI site to specifically site the amount of “home invasions” that occur on a monthly basis thoughout the cities of this country of ours. Home invasions occur quite frequently, I can note. Not only home invasions, but robberies, burglaries, rapes, murders, arson, etc. etc, occur every day………but innocent people are most of the time the victim of crime. Can’t we just level the playing field? What is more sacred than your home. The very home that shelters your family; your sons and daughters, your wife and most of the things you’ve worked so hard for your entire life are always vulnerable to criminals. Never think that it can’t happen to you.
Same with a firearm as it is with health and life insurance. You hope you may never need it, but it’s there if you ever do. Law abiding citizens should have the right to possess a firearm for self-defence. The keys word here is law-abiding.
Now let me tell you a dirty little secret in New York. Many politicians and people with “Money” have a concealed carry permit. You may doubt that, but it is true. In order to be able to carry concealed in places like New York, you must show that you have in your possession large amounts of cash; such as in a business you own. I’ve seen it. Doctors get them because they carry drugs when making house calls, many lawyers have them, business owners can get them……….yet “Joe the average victim” can’t get a concealed carry permit for a firearm.
No matter how you feel about firearms and gun rights……the 2nd and 14th amendments gives the people the right to keep and bare arms. It’s how I’ve always understood that to mean.
So, for those Americans that don’t want guns around their households, you can dial 911 when your HOME IS VIOLATED by a criminal seeking your money, your wife, your children and your money and jewels. There are some of us who think that there are some things worth defending and fighting for.
July 7, 2010, 5:48 pmcboldt says:
– Statements about historical consensus are not positivist, they cannot be true or false in an objective sense. –
July 7, 2010, 5:54 pmIOW, it is impossible to find true or false, “there is a 200 year consensus in support of the collective rights interpretation.”
I defy the TIME author to find ONE 100 year old writing, nevermind 200 year, that describes the collectivist view. He says a consensus existed, are you saying that statement “a consensus existed” can never be shown to be false? Is that your argument?
cboldt says:
– I’m such how much weight to give to their opinion — just as much as we give any other citizen. –
July 7, 2010, 6:01 pmI’m sure you don’t do that in your own personal life. Some people and populations merit greater “trust” and deference, if you will, than others. You give the same weight to a poll of KOS readers (say on a medical issue) as you would to the same poll put to the AMA? You don’t give the AMA more weight than KOS?
I haven’t seen a poll of Chicagoans relating to gun control, but my sense is that the poll results are variable over time, based on conditioning and experience. I’m not saying they don’t have a point of view, I’m saying that a vast majority of people can be conditioned to harbor a false belief as truth. That doesn’t make ‘em bad people.
cboldt says:
– Well, to the extent that it’s a fundamental right then it doesn’t matter what anyone, informed or otherwise, thinks about it. –
July 7, 2010, 6:07 pmWith emphasis on the “to the extent” part. One shift on SCOTUS, one liberal for conservative Justice, and it’ll be “not fundamental anymore.”
My point is, there are still people, 4 Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States for example, who reject the point of view that the right is an individual right – let alone a fundamental individual right. And those 4 are NOT amenable to being persuaded away from the point of view they now hold.
So, it still matters.
mack says:
“Conversely, the pro-gun folks here and elsewhere to not trust or respect the citizens of Chicago to legislate for themselves.”
They may legislate all they want so long as they are not infringing the fundamental rights of their fellow citizens and Chicagoans. The USSC in McDonald did hold that the RKBA was a fundamental right. So it is not conversely that we do not trust the citizens of Chicago to legislate for themselves – they may legislate all they want – excluding those areas that are protected fundamental rights. So we are fine with them legislating all they want and we don’t want to take away their right to do so – but they do want to take away the exercise of the RKBA – so it is not analogous.
July 7, 2010, 6:40 pmLarryA says:
I’m not sure that’s a valid option in this case. For instance you wouldn’t want an injunction to keep Chicago from enforcing the provision against gun stores, shooting ranges, etc. No one could afford to build such a business with the possible prohibition hanging out there.
Actually, one clear indication that RKBA was regarded as an individual right is Chicago’s gun law itself. When it was passed back in 1982 the city council didn’t ban handguns outright because “everybody knew” the Second Amendment wouldn’t let them. Instead, they passed a registration law, and then refused to register new handguns, limiting possession by attrition.
In doing so they were copying the 1976 D.C. law, which is written the same way. The D.C. “registration” law was copied from the 1934 National Firearms Act, which used a very high tax to limit ownership of NFA weapons including short-barreled firearms, automatic weapons, silencers, destructive devices, etc. The NFA drew inspiration from New York City’s 1911 Sullivan Act, which limited handguns with a very restrictive “may issue” system.
Each of these laws was an end-run around the Second Amendment guarantee of an individual RKBA.
July 7, 2010, 7:18 pmAlexia says:
No, there’s an amendment that specifically addresses that.
July 7, 2010, 8:41 pmMichael Ejercito says:
The only campaign that exceeds the gun ban movement in sheer dishonesty and invincible ignorance is the Holocaust denial campaign.
This has been true since 1868, even if the courts were silent on the issue for the first few decades.
No.
I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if counties refused to register new voters, particularly in certain neighborhoods with certain ethnic mixes.
Would a “may-issue” system of licensing same-sex “marriages” stand?
Why has not the mainstream media reported on the hypocrisy of these antigun politicians?
It would exclude any laws that do not apply to the people enforcing them.
Were anti-bigamy laws enforced by bigamists?
Was Prohibition enforced by drunks?
Again with the hypocrisy.
In states where same-sex “marriage” is banned, are the police allowed to “marry” people of the same sex?
July 7, 2010, 9:37 pmAJK says:
Well that sounds familiar!
July 7, 2010, 9:38 pmStephen Lathrop says:
Elliot’s argument comes up again and again. Let’s assume it is valid with regard to the “forecast carnage in the streets,” although it would be helpful to actually see what was forecast and what happened. But what relevance does it have to the larger question of reasonable restrictions on guns?
For instance, what if the armed-and-dangerous part of the population are also scofflaws, who carried their guns around before concealed carry laws were passed, and continued to do so afterward? There wouldn’t be much resulting change in gun crime rates, would there? But that wouldn’t make their concealed carriage of guns any less of a menace.
Where Elliot’s reasoning goes wrong is where he says, “The forecast carnage in the streets did no(t) happen after the laws were in force.” That could be accurate with regard to some forecasts, but it is certainly misleading with regard to what actually happens. Carnage in the streets continues unabated, and a great deal of it comes from people who carry concealed guns. Concealed carry licensing laws didn’t notably change that, and according to Elliot, they didn’t make it worse. Good.
But that tells us little about whether people have rational concerns when they worry about concealed guns in the hands of bad people, or any of the other aspects of unchecked gun prevalence which abet the undeniable gun carnage. The apparent success of concealed carry licensing laws is not an argument against reasonable gun restrictions intended to get concealed guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. And if doing that necessarily imposes some restrictions on licensees, such as time, place, and manner restrictions applied to both gun owners and gun commerce, those may be reasonable.
The arguments should be about the scope of reasonable restrictions, not about whether they should exist at all.
July 8, 2010, 6:54 amcboldt says:
– The arguments should be about the scope of reasonable restrictions, not about whether they should exist at all. –
July 8, 2010, 7:16 amThe scope of restriction is precisely defined. See 40 states laws for the scope of restrictions, compare with the scope of restrictions proposed by Mayor Daley.
– what if the armed-and-dangerous part of the population are also scofflaws, who carried their guns around before concealed carry laws were passed, and continued to do so afterward? There wouldn’t be much resulting change in gun crime rates, would there? –
It is prudent to assume that thugs will continue to go armed.
The function of good guys being permitted to bear arms is for self-defense purposes; not for disarming thugs, but for equalizing force and resisting thuggery.
Violence will persist in proportion to the thuggery. The goal is to have the innocent person prevail in incidents where thug meets innocent.
See too, deterrent effect.
cboldt says:
– Carnage in the streets continues unabated … –
July 8, 2010, 7:28 amI think this is false. There have been abatements in carnage where restrictions on bearing arms have been relaxed. And I think it is important to include in the carnage metric, whether the injured/dead person was a thug or an innocent. Massive carnage against thugs is a good thing, in that it results in a more peaceful society.
Katahdin says:
That is exactly what happens. The muggers and gang bangers ignored the law before CCW is passed, they don’t get permits, and they continue to ignore the law afterward. The only people affected are the law abiding, who no longer have to defend themselves barehanded against potentially stronger, armed attackers. The only effect on the crooks is that some of their potential victims no longer are.
The predictions aren’t that after CCW, crime will cease and we’ll all sing Kumbayah. They are that the law abiding people with permits won’t be constantly losing their temper and shooting people in arguments over parking spaces or whatever. That is what happens – 5% of the population gets permits and … nothing untoward happens.
The unabated carnage is from the same people that were carrying illegally before CCW and will do so in the face of any restrictions you enact – the people that, in the absence of a CCW system, enjoy a de facto monopoly on carrying.
Of course not. Guns, concealed or otherwise, shouldn’t be in the hands of crooks. What the history shows is that CCW holders aren’t members of the set ‘dangerous individuals’.
The argument is about what is reasonable. Are VT’s carry laws reasonable? If we could have two sets of test tubes, and have stringent laws in one set and VT’s laws in the other, and there was no detectable difference in between the two, does that mean strict laws are reasonable?
Unless it has changed in the last few years, OR does not allow self serve gas stations. If you pull into a station and start pumping, an attendant runs out and tells you that you are breaking the law. The justification is that handling a product as volatile as gasoline must be entrusted to the highly trained professionals; allowing the untrained, reckless masses to handle their own gas pump handles would lead to fires and explosions as they spilled gas everywhere while smoking. To people in the other 49 states, of course, that argument is ridiculous.
The remaining CCW holdout states are in the same position of maintaining an untenable fiction. CCW, even under the laxest regimens, simply doesn’t cause problems. WA has had CCW for 49 years. We don’t have to hypothesize about what might happen – we know what did happen.
July 8, 2010, 8:08 amcboldt says:
– allowing the untrained, reckless masses to handle their own gas pump handles would lead to fires and explosions as they spilled gas everywhere while smoking. To people in the other 49 states, of course, that argument is ridiculous. –
New Jersey too. But guess what? It’s viewed as ridiculous by citizens of New Jersey.
July 8, 2010, 9:07 amI got to thinking about the “What works in Wyoming doesn’t work in Chicago” line, which generally goes without being challenge. I think the statement is false on its face. Set aside the RKBA as a matter of law, and let policy rule the decision. Either the people can be trusted, or not.
New Yorker says:
Why do right-wingers rail against federal interference in local affairs until it’s something they support?
Here in NYC, guns are basically banned. And gun violence has decreased dramatically since the awful late 80s/early 90s (for all sorts of reasons). Take it from someone who rides the subway every day: there are a lot of really crazy people in big cities. And the S. Ct. just made it legal for them all to get guns? Thanks, 5 old out-of-touch guys with security details. Can’t wait for you to overturn the new Chicago ordinance and make it legal for them to carry on the subway.
The argument that “bad guys will get guns anyway” is bogus and lazy. It’s not easy to get a gun or carry it in NYC. It’s ignorant to assert that every little gangster thug has one anyway, because most don’t. Get caught with one and it tacks on at least 5 years to whatever other illegal thing you were doing. Even dumb criminals know this. So yes, some bad folks still have guns. But they don’t scare me nearly as much as random crazies ranting about microwaves, their demon-cats, or Jesus’s angry wrath.
(There would be even fewer guns in NYC if not for Virginia and Georgia and the other easy-buy states that flood the nation with guns, making them relatively cheaper and easier to obtain than they would be if NYC wasn’t having its laws undermined.)
One more point: ask a conservative who supports the RKBA as set forth in McDonald the following question: “Should Muslims who live on your street — and who believe that Allah is the one true God and all non-Muslims are infidels — be allowed to own whatever guns and ammo they want?” It’s fun to watch right-wing paranoia about gangbangers (ooh, I need a gun to protect myself from those scary black guys!) crash into right-wing paranoia about Muslims (oooh, those scary brown guys are making me nervous! Oh my god, does he have a GUN?!?).
July 8, 2010, 11:02 amOrenWithAnE says:
Assuming the conclusion, the position [not **my** position, mind you] is that the RKBA is not constitutionally compelled and thus restrictions on guns must meet rational basis, not strict scrutiny.
(1) They can be wrong without (as is often suggested) being misinformed or malicious (or both).
(2) This isn’t horseshoes or hand grenades. “Might” isn’t good enough, especially for those arguing that it “might but isn’t”.
(3) It is not really for you to judge what is or is not an intellectually valid interpretation of the data given that you have already expressed a conclusion on the merits. Obviously you think that the data that support your side constitutes a mountain of evidence (and you have dismissed as a molehill the contrary data) otherwise you would not have come to the conclusion.
Cruikshank, for one (racist though it is).
I’m not saying it can never to be shown to be false in a different universe where the 2A did not have a prefatory clause etc. But in the vast majority of non-stupidly-obvious cases what constitutes a consensus is a subjective matter.
In my personal life I can credit whatever beliefs I see fit.
As a matter of the body politic, we ought to respect the opinions of all citizens (notwithstanding our believe that their beliefs are false) as being of equal weight for the purposes of making public policy.
[ And I stress again, if the RKBA is beyond the legislature then it is beyond the legislature -- zero weight for all is equal weight for all. ]
You misconstrue the dissent in Heller, but that’s another matter.
Of course, the same is true for Lawrence, Roe/Casey, Wisconsin RTL v FEC and a whole host of rights we still call fundamental despite their precarious legal position.
And you can have a Model T in whatever color you want ….
A 1911 law was an end run around an individual RKBA that was not recognized till a century later?! That’s amazing!
Next up you’ll tell me that anti-sodomy laws passed in the 1800s were an end run around Lawrence!
July 8, 2010, 11:06 amFederal Farmer says:
It was those darned Republicans that freed the slaves too! Can’t they just let locals handle all matters?!?!
Seriously, in what world can a little old lady defend her life against 3 youths armed with knives or even just fists? Not in your mythical gun-free ‘utopia’. That place is one where the weak are prey to the strong. We had that 1000 years ago and we called it the “Dark Ages”.
You are the paranoid one.
July 8, 2010, 11:08 amMr. B. says:
I was reading the background section of the complaint which has specific quotes from several legislators clearly stating that they are imposing the new restrictions because they don’t agree with the SCOTUS decision.
What I would like to know is, does that qualify as a Title 18, section 241 and/or 242 violation?
July 8, 2010, 11:08 amFederal Farmer says:
You know the courts move slowly…and sometimes erroneously (see Dred Scott…also see the Miller which only asked that the weapon be related to militia, not the man himself – essentially recognizing an individual right unconnect with militia membership).
It took quite a while for our First Amendment rights to be fleshed out. Note that the Alien and Sedition Acts would have been ruled unconstitutional today but went unchallenged in court.
July 8, 2010, 11:15 amElliot says:
If NY gun violence has fallen, and Chicago gun violence has risen, and both have stringent gun laws, then it’s reasonable to ask if something besides gun laws is the major factor.
What are the aspects of the NY law that makes it so much more effective than the law Chicago had since 1980?
July 8, 2010, 11:23 amMichael Ejercito says:
Local affairs can not infringe on fundamental rights.
How exactly did that gun ban help Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, and Sean Bell?
Funny how you mention security details. Is Mayor Bloomberg’s security detail unarmed?
It is also true, as the Saint Nothing’s Day Massacre has shown.
I suppose that all the heroin and crack come to New York from Virginia and Georgia as well.
Yes, as long as they have not been convicted of a violent crime.
July 8, 2010, 11:34 amMichael Ejercito says:
Are you sure Dred Scott v. Sanford was wrongly decided?
Dred Scott was decided before the ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments. And while the 13th obviously gutted Dred Scott’s relevance to slavery, it did not gut this particular holding by the Supreme Court, concerning the rights of American citizens:
July 8, 2010, 11:41 amcboldt says:
– Cruikshank, for one (racist though it is). –
Cruickshank asserts that the RKBA is a collective/state right? Are you sure about that? Linked the case for others to read how wrong you are. One clue, the world “militia” doesn’t even appear in the opinion.
– In my personal life I can credit whatever beliefs I see fit. –
That was my point. And that the majority can be conditioned to be harbor false beliefs (e.g., the earth is flat), which is a point you so far haven’t disagreed with. I say that if policy depends on a false belief, then the policy lacks justification. You say the mere fact that a majority adopted it justifies it.
– You misconstrue the dissent in Heller [i.e., the Heller dissent does not reject the point of view that the right is an individual right] –
One must adopt a truly twisted interpretation of the English language to see individual right (by common meaning of the phrase) in the dissent’s exposition:
Listen, you seem to be a congenial chap, and I generally enjoy our chats. But over the course of the past 24 months or so, I’ve found a significant number of your contentions to be either outright false, incomplete to the point of being radically misleading (IOW, you point opposite the direction of what the source document says) or sophistry. What’s up with that?
July 8, 2010, 11:51 amcboldt says:
– A 1911 law was an end run around an individual RKBA that was not recognized till a century later?! –
Here’s an example of revisionist history being used to mock a correct contention. There are myriad sources that recognize an individual RKBA that predate imposition of the Sullivan Act. I know you aware of them, because you cite them by name.
Your credibility is in tatters.
July 8, 2010, 12:00 pmElliot says:
That is a good point for discussion, but hardly the only point. But, in discussing it, we should acknowledge that gun carnage did not increase in the 40(?) states that enacted “shall issue” concealed carry.
July 8, 2010, 12:02 pmMichael Ejercito says:
Dred Scott v. Sanford, for one.
July 8, 2010, 12:04 pmNew Yorker says:
Mr. Ejercito asked: “How exactly did that gun ban help Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, and Sean Bell?”
Are you suggesting things would have gone better for them had they been armed? Maybe they would have been able to shoot back at the cops? Take out a couple cops (or bystanders) along with them? What exactly is your point here? That cops will be less trigger-happy if everyone is carrying a gun?
July 8, 2010, 12:43 pmMichael Ejercito says:
Yes, it would have been better if they took out a couple of murderers.
By the way, have you noticed that Carolyn McCarthy never called for the disbandment or disarmament of the NYPD after these incidents?
July 8, 2010, 12:55 pmOrenWithAnE says:
This is a silly way to put it. Before the Warren Court, our first amendment rights did not cover subversive speech. See, e.g. Schenck v United States, Debs v. United States, Abrams v. United States, Gitlow v. New York.
Translation: If I disagree with a policy, it is unjustified.
Let me turn this around:
(1) I believe that it is objectively true that nuclear power is the safest method of baseload power generation.
(2) It is therefore a “false belief” that nuclear power is dangerous, or at any rate more dangerous that the alternatives.
(3) Therefore the Various States are unjustified in placing restrictions on new nuclear power plants.
What you’ve done here is do nothing more than reword the concept of “unjustified” to mean “based on belief with which I disagree”. Look, I think that fear of nuclear power is totally bonkers (and unscientific to boot) but I am not appointed the Scientific Czar of America. Those that disagree with me are wrong but they are entitled to a contrary opinion as a basic matter of polity.
Only in the absence of Constitutional provisions to the contrary, as I’ve said earlier.
Various States recognized an iRKBA as a matter of their respective constitutions but I’m not aware of any Federal cases. Your reading of Cruikshank is contrary to every Circuit that has interpreted the case.
Until Heller, no Federal Court had struck down any gun control law, Federal or State, on 2A grounds. No Circuit had even entertained the idea that the Cruikshank might stand for the opposite* of what it says directly. The closest you come is dicta from Dred Scott, a decision in such disrepair that I would think that the idea that a proposition is mentioned positively in Dred is usually a point of evidence against it.
* Cruikshank states directly: The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution.
[ Of course, normatively I prefer Heller/McDonald to Cruikshank. I prefer modern 1A doctrine to Shneck. I prefer Lawrence to Bowers. That doesn't mean anything about the state of the law before those decisions or laughable statements about legislative "end runs" around rights that were not even rights at the time. ]
July 8, 2010, 1:23 pmFederal Farmer says:
Emerson?
July 8, 2010, 1:36 pmcboldt says:
– Until Heller, no Federal Court had struck down any gun control law, Federal or State, on 2A grounds. –
July 8, 2010, 1:39 pmThat’s false. See the District Court in the Miller case. Indictment quashed. On 2nd amendment grounds.
If I understand, your contention is that the statement, “for more than 200 years, the overwhelming view in the legal world had been that the Second Amendment only protected a state’s right to maintain a ‘well-regulated militia.’” is not falsifiable. As backup, your contention is that Cruickshank asserts the RKBA is a collective right. As evidence, you produce the following:
– Cruikshank states directly: The right there specified is that of `bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ –
Yes, a right that must belong to an individual rather than to the state, if the right, when encroached by an individual other than a government actor, is to be enforced as a matter of state police power, as Cruickshank states.
You are claiming that Cruickshank states the collective rights theory, but that quote does not support your contention.
– Translation: If I disagree with a policy, it is unjustified. –
That’s an incorrect translation of what I said, and I think you know it.
I think I’m at the point of concluding that you are just a crank, and not to be taken seriously. Even cranks and nuts are entitled to their opinions. If you care how much weight your opinions are given, you’ll critically review what you are saying.
OrenWithAnE says:
I think you do not realize that you are acting both as councilor and jury. You are not entitled to dismiss the factual basis for the opposing position as distinct from stating that you support your own position. Those are identical acts.
Yes. Which is to say that the right is not to be protected as a matter of the 2A as made applicable to the States by the 14A.
It’s practically tautological that a matter of State police power cannot be a matter of Federal protection. If the State can police it, the Fed cannot protect it. If the Fed protects it, the State cannot police it. Cruikshank said that if you want vindication of your iRKBA, you have to look to the State because the Federal government does not provide it.
July 8, 2010, 2:12 pmmack says:
cboldt – orenwithane is only arguing to stir the pot – don’t take him seriously – his posts aren’t serious – he just makes a sarcastic comment and then moves on – if you reply to his post with substantive argument he just makes another sarcastic comment slightly off the original point to make a moving target – and on and on.
Most third party readers are aware within a short time who is being serious and offering substance and who is being an intellectual gadfly. In this thread he is just being a gadfly.
July 8, 2010, 2:16 pmcboldt says:
– orenwithane … — don’t take him seriously –
July 8, 2010, 2:47 pmI don’t. Figured out over a year ago. Just my style to “play nice” up to a point, it makes a superior permanent record by leaving substantive evidence to discredit him.
OrenWithAnE says:
It’s a funny thing mack. Having started a rightward drift in politics I am amazed by the volume of people on the right that seem intent on alienating even those that substantively agree with them.
In fact, in this thread we seem to agree that the disposition of Chicago voters is still reliably antiCCW, even if there is some momentum in the other direction. We seem to agree that the laws in question run afoul of the 2A/14A. The only thing remains is why you can’t even be civil to people on your own side when, as I see it, you owe everyone at least that much.
July 8, 2010, 2:49 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Oren,
When I use the phrase “objectively false” to describe the position that gun restrictions have a “positive” impact on crime and safety I am not making a “value judgment”, except perhaps so much as it is a value judgment that 1+1=2.
The raw data and comprehensive government (from non-friendly to RKBA agencies no less) studies are publically available. The lack of effect of lawful possession and carry on crime and safety is about as settled as social science can get; multiple studies over decades on the national, state and local level confirming the same results. Whatever group of factors impact crime and accident rates, gun restrictions are apparently not statistically significant members thereof.
In any event, the burden both legal and ethical, on restricting a right lies on the restrictor. No legal argument based on the available science has been made. Instead merely emotional and anecdotal claims, often actually contradicted by the evidence, are repeatedly presented.
My hope is that now that the “rational basis” test is off the table that lack of evidence on the part of those who would restrict freedoms will be made clear.
July 8, 2010, 2:55 pmFederal Farmer says:
I think we should be civil to all, even those we disagree with and I hope at least I have maintained that somewhat. There will always be contentious people but I wouldn’t say the bulk of them are uncivil…perhaps just the loudest?
July 8, 2010, 2:55 pmcboldt says:
– I am amazed by the volume of people on the right that seem intent on alienating even those that substantively agree with them. –
July 8, 2010, 2:59 pmThat’s the pot calling the kettle black. I’ll grant that you are superficially civil, and I said as much above. But as far as substantive argument goes, well, you seem intent on alienating even those that you claim to share substantive agreement with.
Argument from sophistry and misstated precedent is off-putting, and at bottom, is a form of incivility. Your “civility” is a sham act.
OrenWithAnE says:
But that requires weighing varying pieces of evidences — assigning some higher value (because you think they are reliable indicia) and others lower value (because you think they are no reliable indicia.
There are places in the world that have high safety and high gun restrictions, there are places with high gun ownership and high safety. Trying to draw a line between a large number of data and calling it the equivalent of ’1+1=2′ is disingenuous. That said, I do agree with the conclusion that the balance of the evidence weighs in favor of liberal gun laws.
If you want to label it settled, go ahead. As it stands in reality, there is significant disagreement in the social sciences world about the effects of gun laws.
I happen to think the proRKBA forces have the better end of the argument, naturally, but it’s ridiculous to pretend like the matter is “settled” when it remains one of the most live-fire (excuse the pun) areas of continued debate.
[ I'm sure someone will chime in to the extent that those arguing the contrary position are wrong, therefore unjustified and malevolent, therefore we can dismiss them, therefore there is no continued controversy. It's a clever way of arguing from "I'm right" to "I'm indisputably right". Like it or not, there are still a large contingent that disagrees with the conclusion. They might be wrong but they most certainly exists and the controversy is most certainly alive and well. ]
Ethically, sure. Legally, I wish it were so but there is no presumption of liberty in our jurisprudence, at least when it comes to the States’ general power to legislate.
In a rational basis test the court defers the factual findings of the legislature. You would not like the conclusion of such an inquiry.
Thanks. It helps to be reminded.
So, all I have to do to get the better end of an argument is:
(1) Claim my opponent is a sophist, which is to say his argument is invalid — the effect of which is nothing more than the assertion that his point is wrong and yours is right.
(2) Claim that he mis-states precedent (never mind of course that the live debate is precisely on the meaning of that precedent) and so the effect is nothing more than a re-assertion of the original position.
And then conclude that this is a sham argument? It’s a wonder that anyone can debate anything when you can simply label your opponents arguments away into oblivion.
July 8, 2010, 3:28 pmcboldt says:
– So, all I have to do to get the better end of an argument is:
July 8, 2010, 3:51 pm(1) Claim my opponent is a sophist, which is to say his argument is invalid — the effect of which is nothing more than the assertion that his point is wrong and yours is right.
(2) Claim that he mis-states precedent … —
No, you have to do more than CLAIM it. You have to show it.
My sophistry complaint aim to distinguish your tactics that aren’t in the nature of making false claims about precedent. For example, converting “If policy depends on a false belief (e.g., the earth is flat), then the policy lacks justification.” into “If I disagree with a policy, it is unjustified.”
I make plenty of incorrect and erroneous statements, I welcome being corrected, and if in the midst of debate, I have the decency to acknowledge the error. As far as I can tell, you are clinging to the contentions that the Heller dissent recognized an individual right, that Cruickshank asserts a collective right (although you later slipped and said Cruickshank was about an iRKBA), and that my argument amounts to a naked and conclusory assertion of being right.
LarryA says:
For instance, we could have a law that says felons can’t possess firearms or ammunition, and another law saying that carrying concealed without a license is illegal, and another law saying that shooting at someone is illegal, and another law saying that assaulting someone is illegal and adding an enhanced sentence for assaulting someone with a weapon, and another law saying that threatening someone is illegal and adding an enhanced sentence for threatening someone with a weapon, and another law making carrying while intoxicated illegal.
Oh, wait…
Or we could have “reasonable” time-and-place restrictions, knowing that every active shooting where more than two innocent people were killed happened in a “gun-free” zone.
The first test of how reasonable a law is should be “Is it effective.” If banning concealed carry on college campuses doesn’t stop active shootings or reduce the campus crime rate, then the restriction isn’t reasonable.
In 1911 it was an end run around the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The “individual” tag wasn’t added until the late 1970s, to distinguish it from the newly-invented “collective right” theory. That’s also the way I remember the D.C. law being debated, shortly before the collective theory first surfaced.
Actually, they live on the street behind me. And yes, all men being created equal, they have the same rights I do. I don’t know of anyone in the gun club we both belong to who disagrees. I also have a couple of gay friends who are getting into shooting, and I’m hoping they start a local Pink Pistols chapter.
July 8, 2010, 3:51 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Oren,
We’re not talking cross-national studies which are fraught with complications. We are talking about studies that are comprehensive for the United States and the United States alone. The experiences of other countries are irrelevent to the discussion of what American gun laws should be based on the experience of the US controlled for as a whole. Kopel does an excellent job of describing the particular issues with cross-national comparisons (on gun control or any social science issue) in his “Samurai, Mountie and Cowboy” book.
As for weighing the data, we’re talking the supposed gold standard of science, peer review with access to raw data and the collection means as well as full access to the math. The same or similar studies have been conducted over time, by both critics and supporters, with the same results. Using that standard, which is the accepted established basis for determining scientific “truth”, the data showing no statistically significant negative effect on crime or general public safety is settled.
Folks still claim vehemently the Earth is flat, that doesn’t mean their position should be given any regard anymore. Again, note that gun control proponants don’t use the peer-reviewed science, don’t cite to the raw data, data collected and studies performed by agencies like the CDC (who consider gun ownership a negative national health issue as a matter of policy) they instead resort to “Google searches” and misstatements of even the few sound findings of notably flawed (by the criminological community’s standards) studies like Kellerman’s.
Any independent review comes to the same conclusions, which is why the level of review of challenged restrictions matters. It won’t fall to the legislature listening to Josh Hennigan do his little dance and the court taking their word for it, it will be reams of professionally reviewed, long published journal data submitted to the court from one side and a lot of verbal tapdancing and citations to Google by the other.
July 8, 2010, 3:54 pmcboldt says:
– Josh Hennigan –
July 8, 2010, 4:01 pmI think you mean Josh Sugarmann.
Matthew Carberry says:
Yep, Josh of VPC and/or Dennis Henigan of Brady
or some sort of unholy merged clone thereof…
=)
Thanks for the correction
July 8, 2010, 4:15 pmOrenWithAnE says:
But that more or less what it is.
Suppose person A believe fact F and therefore supports policy P while person B believes that F is untrue and therefore opposes policy P. These two debate, setting out their difference of opinion on F and therefore their opposing policy preferences. Now, person B states that fact F is an “false belief” and therefore “P lacks justification”. This of course was evident from the beginning — it adds nothing semantically to the discussion.
Formally speaking, the sentence “X is a false belief” is equivalent to “X is false” or “not X”.
In the case of the flat earth supporters, there following sentences are equivalent: “The earth is round”, “Is it not the case that the earth is flat” and “\”The earth is flat\” is a false belief”. You add nothing to your case that the earth is round by pointing out that belief that it is flat is incorrect — that statement was already included in your original position.
Cruikshank was about the lack of a Federal iRKBA, as the justices directed the issue to the State’s power.
Only some of the elements do.
The more disturbing part isn’t the conclusory nature of it, it is the snide and undeserved scorn for anyone that disagrees with you (and recall, this is coming from someone that agrees with you) — as if no human being in their right mind could possibly conclude that strict gun laws might improve public safety. There is real danger in those that see their position as beyond dispute.
Quibble accepted, except that there was no RKBA enforceable at the time so it still was an end run against a doctrine that did not exist until 97 years later.
I’m not exactly sure why that should be as an empirical matter. I will be the first to complain about European and Canadian legal norms as inappropriate for our political tradition but I’ve never heard anyone claim that the same applies to empirical experience.
Moreover, if that’s the claim then gun supporters can no longer cite Switzerland and Israel as evidence in their favor. I think that’s a losing proposition since both of those places have shown quite clearly that widespread gun ownership/carrying is compatible with low crime.
You keep asserting that it’s settled while the controversy rages on. Isn’t it enough to simply be correct on the merits? Why the hyperbole? You are right, leave it at that.
Except that if the flat earth party gained a majority of Congress and defunded NASA (on the grounds that they perpetrated some hoax or another) and, in the absence of any Constitutional restrictions on such defunding, I think we would all be obligated to give them exactly as much regard as any other democratically ratified policy.
July 8, 2010, 5:53 pmcboldt says:
– The more disturbing part isn’t the conclusory nature of it, it is the snide and undeserved scorn for anyone that disagrees with you — as if no human being in their right mind could possibly conclude that strict gun laws might improve public safety. There is real danger in those that see their position as beyond dispute. –
July 8, 2010, 6:08 pmI am tolerant of reasoned disagreement. I’m abrupt with assertions of falsehood as valid premise (e.g., “Miller was convicted,” “Heller dissent found an individual right,” “The Cruikshank Court only found a collective right,” “Collective right theory is 200 years old”) and faulty forms of argument.
Some people that are generally of a right mind are dishonest. Dishonesty in argument is common.
As far as a person seeing their arguments as being beyond dispute, look in the mirror, Jack.
Elliot says:
We should never forget that gangbangers all over the country are waiting for legal guidance on this issue.
July 8, 2010, 7:48 pmOrenWithAnE says:
The epistemological bar for declaring an argument to be dishonest, as opposed to merely wrong, is so strict that it’s generally a good rule just assume that all arguments are either correct or incorrect and end it at that.
An accusation of dishonesty in an argument requires either an supernatural ability to read minds or an unattainable certainty in ones own rightness.
July 8, 2010, 10:47 pmcboldt says:
– An accusation of dishonesty in an argument requires either an supernatural ability to read minds or an unattainable certainty in ones own rightness. –
July 9, 2010, 6:41 amYou’ve never encountered an internet troll?
I can’t say you do it with the purpose of being dishonest, but you in fact make a significant number of outright false and radically misleading representations of legal authority. And I can’t not recall one single time where you have acknowledged the error, when it was pointed out.
And you are very polite.
OrenWithAnE says:
You believe those representations are false, I think they are correct. We disagree. Nothing more, nothing less.
July 9, 2010, 6:57 amcboldt says:
– You believe those representations are false, I think they are correct. Nothing more, nothing less. –
July 9, 2010, 7:49 amThere is more. The ramifications against our respective credibilities is affected, more or less depending on where on a spectrum of “objectively discernible” the representations fall. I believe the following representations are false.
Cruickshank describes a collectivist view of the right to keep and bear arms.
The dissent in Heller does not reject the point of view that the right exists outside the organized militia.
An individual RKBA was not recognized until Heller.
Until Heller, no Federal Court had struck down any gun control law.
Paladin says:
@Stephen Lathrop: Americans who do not like guns or do not want guns around them have a couple of choices. 1. They can work toward a constitutional amendment that repeals or renders ineffective the 2nd Amendment (good luck on that one – snark) or, 2. We would welcome them taking the opportunity to move their cowardly, collectivist attitude and bodies to another country where the government already provides the utopian environment they seek like Russia, N. Korea, China or maybe even Iran.
Bon Voyage!
July 9, 2010, 4:06 pmPaladin says:
ACboldt: Correction: An individual RKBA was not recognized [BY THE SUPREME COURT] until Heller.
The American citizenry has ALWAYS RECOGNIZED AND CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD that the RKBA was an individual right NOT LEGITIMATELY subject to infringement by any level of government in “the land!”
It’s abundantly clear to anyone with a grade school education that reads the Constitution and the empirical evidence relating to its debate and ratification WITHOUT THE COLOR OF AN ELITIST, STATIST TYRANT OR LEGAL “SCHOLAR”.
July 9, 2010, 4:14 pmcboldt says:
– Correction: An individual RKBA was not recognized [BY THE SUPREME COURT] until Heller. –
July 9, 2010, 6:46 pmI think that is false too. The cases that are touted as hostile to the RKBA are hostile to using the 2nd amendment against private actors (Cruickshank), or to negate parade permit laws (Presser), but both of those cases state that the people have a RKBA. Cruickshank never mentions the word “militia,” but says the RKBA stands independently of the 2nd amendment.
Presser goes into more detail on the militia point. Cruickshank just says the 2nd amendment can’t be enforced against your neighbor.
Also, SCOTUS, in Heller, cites Miller as seeing an individual right, as Miller’s indictment would have remained quashed if a short barrel shotgun was useful in a militia or for the common defense. Miler didn’t need to be a member of an (state) organized militia in order for the 1934 NFA to be held unconstitutional. The weapon was the inquiry, not the person’s membership in an organized militia.
cboldt says:
IOW, the Supreme Court recognized, and stated an individual RKBA, at least as early as the Presser case (1886).
This is a big block quote, broken up and interspersed with my comments. I don’t want to be accused of pretending the “2nd amendment only restrains the feds” language. The point is, the RKBA and the 2nd amendment are separable, in that the RKBA can exist in the absence of the 2nd amendment.
See “right of the people,” not a right of the states.
That’s not a trivially easy piece to digest. I’ll paraphrase it.
The Court is saying that the 2nd amendment prevents the federal government from infringing. The Court points to the Cruickshank case, which finds the RKBA isn’t granted by the constitution, and doesn’t depend on the constitution.
When a right doesn’t depend on the constitution (or an amendment to the constitution), then the right cannot be said to be viewed, by SCOTUS, as depending on the government created by the constitution. The RKBA exists even if the federal government doesn’t. Given that, it is irrational to claim that the RKBA depends on the existence of government organized militia.
The Cruickshank case then goes on to say that the 2nd amendment can’t be used against a fellow-citizen. If a fellow-citizen takes your guns, you need to turn to the state for relief, because the constitution does not restrain your fellow-citizen.
The Presser Court goes on, and describes the relationship between the RKBA and the states power to infringe it.
So, there is what the Presser case has to say about the RKBA, the 2nd amendment, the power of the federal government, and the power of the states.
July 9, 2010, 7:18 pmIt does not say that the RKBA extends only to people in an organized militia. It says the states may not deprive the people (all!! citizens) of the RKBA.
Guess what the Federal Courts say the Presser case stands for? The Federal Courts say the Presser case green lights states to infringe the RKBA.
cboldt says:
– It’s abundantly clear to anyone with a grade school education that reads the Constitution and the empirical evidence relating to its debate and ratification WITHOUT THE COLOR OF AN ELITIST, STATIST TYRANT OR LEGAL “SCHOLAR”. –
Very few people read and understand the precedents. Lawyers, particularly, trust that Courts will honestly represent what a precedent stands for.
July 9, 2010, 7:31 pmThe amount of rank dishonesty in the Courts, on the 2nd amendment, shocks the conscience. Congress not only looks the other way, it approves of this, because what is being upheld against the people are Congressional laws.
Elliot says:
Why?
July 9, 2010, 9:08 pmcboldt says:
– “Lawyers, particularly, trust that Courts will honestly represent what a precedent stands for.”
Why? –
A variety of reasons, I suppose. First, the system depends on honesty and integrity for moral validity. If the system is corrupt, only corrupt people want to enable it; and most people repel or fight corruption rather than implement or enable it. Second, the nature of the art of law is taught as being built on logic, “rule of law” and all. If the Courts are not following precedent, then there is no rule of law. Why do the hard work of building a logical argument, if the Court is going to make it up? Third, the arrangement of presentation in a Court’s decision typically includes citations, which invites, essential, “check for yourself.” Most lawyers are too busy to check; and the invitation to check adds credibility, even if the invitation is a bluff. For reasons above, it strains ones core belief system to think judges, parties with credibility and “moral right – high road” to lose if caught, would openly fabricate facts to reach the outcome they desire.
July 9, 2010, 9:29 pmLawyers are taught that society itself rests on the foundation of law, which rests on reason, fairness, and logic.
As “insiders,” lawyers also have a vested self-interest. In some cases, the judges and opposing counsel are their friends – all of us have gone through a similar educational experience.
For the most part, the law is honest; or sincerely tries to be. Or at least I think so.
But 2nd amendment jurisprudence is a sham. The cases say what they say, the trail of rank dishonesty is visible to anybody who looks. In this area, the law is all about brute force. The judges have it, and the people don’t.
Elliot says:
I suppose reason #3 can be checked, but aren’t the others reasons normative? This seems a question of judges actual behavior, rather than what we would like.
If few lawyers check the footnotes, and 2nd amendment jurisprudence is a sham, is it reasonable to question if the trust in judges is deserved in other areas? I don’t take a position either way, and I hope you are correct, but skepticism seems to be in order.
July 9, 2010, 9:42 pmcboldt says:
– If few lawyers check the footnotes, and 2nd amendment jurisprudence is a sham, is it reasonable to question if the trust in judges is deserved in other areas? –
July 9, 2010, 10:06 pmIt’s checking the citations (not footnotes), to see if they really do support the proposition claimed.
Generally, a lawyer is reluctant to point of judicial error in precedent – it’s bad form, almost like calling your boss a liar. So, they look for ways to win the case (they have no personal stake) with argument – and it’s “okay” if the argument is shady, “everybody inside knows it.”
But sometimes (rarely) a lawyer will expressly point to a material error in precedent. Hamblen’s lawyer did, pointed to the Heller majority’s “Miller was convicted” error (which is about as blatant as it gets – Miller’s indictment was quashed and the law was found unconstitutional by the District Court). The response of the judge was to hand-wave, basically saying “The Heller Court disagrees with you” Hell, he knew that!
Your “skepticism seems to be in order” is good advice for life in general. But too much reality, and you’ll turn into a cynic.