Thought on the Chicago SCOTUS case...

**zachomega** · October 16th, 2009, 12:38 PM

I've had a couple of thoughts on this matter for a few days now. Just thought I'd put them out there and get some feedback.

As we are all well aware, the Heller case pretty much paved the way here. That is, I think we all expect Chicago's gun ban to be lifted as unconstitutional. At least I do. It is a power grab. Saying the states can't control guns (as the ATF clearly told Tennessee and Montana) basically puts firearms under federal control.

However, if for some reason the ban is upheld, does that mean that they are affirming state rights and that the laws passed in Tennessee and Montana can than be successfully argued?

Does this also open the doorway for lifting certain weapon bans in California and other states?

Just kind of thinking out loud.

-Zach

**AxiTech** · October 16th, 2009, 01:05 PM

Those are good questions. I don't have an answer for you, but they need answers.

**arrrrgh15** · October 16th, 2009, 01:10 PM

I don't know either, but as for lifting certain weapon bans in Kalifornia.....bwaaaaahaaa haaaaa haaaaaaa.. Yeah, right. That'll be the day.

**-JD-** · October 16th, 2009, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by zachomega

I've had a couple of thoughts on this matter for a few days now. Just thought I'd put them out there and get some feedback.

As we are all well aware, the Heller case pretty much paved the way here. That is, I think we all expect Chicago's gun ban to be lifted as unconstitutional. At least I do. It is a power grab. Saying the states can't control guns (as the ATF clearly told Tennessee and Montana) basically puts firearms under federal control.

However, if for some reason the ban is upheld, does that mean that they are affirming state rights and that the laws passed in Tennessee and Montana can than be successfully argued?

Does this also open the doorway for lifting certain weapon bans in California and other states?

Just kind of thinking out loud.

-Zach

Logic would dictate (IMHO) that if the USSC holds that the Constitution denies prohibition of individual ownership of arms at the state/local level (on 2nd amendment ground) that it (denial of prohibition) would apply to the US Gov as well.

If they don't strike the ban down, I don't see any strengthening of states rights.

However, while Heller denies outright prohibition, it specifically allows for "reasonable regulation"

The ATF did not not say that states can't regulate, it merely said that the states can't interfere with federal regulations (nominally derived from the interstate commerce clause).

**press1280** · October 16th, 2009, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by zachomega

I've had a couple of thoughts on this matter for a few days now. Just thought I'd put them out there and get some feedback.

As we are all well aware, the Heller case pretty much paved the way here. That is, I think we all expect Chicago's gun ban to be lifted as unconstitutional. At least I do. It is a power grab. Saying the states can't control guns (as the ATF clearly told Tennessee and Montana) basically puts firearms under federal control.

However, if for some reason the ban is upheld, does that mean that they are affirming state rights and that the laws passed in Tennessee and Montana can than be successfully argued?

Does this also open the doorway for lifting certain weapon bans in California and other states?

Just kind of thinking out loud.

-Zach

From what I understand, the TN and MT laws are not based on the 2nd Amendment, but the 10th Amendment. Merchandise that is made in a state and only sold in that state(I presume to state residents only) is 100% controlled by the state and cannot be touched by the Interstate Commerce laws(FEDS). The FEDS have used to commerce clause and stretched it beyond belief to take control of things they have no business being in.

**ksig1869** · October 17th, 2009, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by press1280

From what I understand, the TN and MT laws are not based on the 2nd Amendment, but the 10th Amendment. Merchandise that is made in a state and only sold in that state(I presume to state residents only) is 100% controlled by the state and cannot be touched by the Interstate Commerce laws(FEDS). The FEDS have used to commerce clause and stretched it beyond belief to take control of things they have no business being in.

Yep agreed, completely different case with MT and TN cases.

**mcmcallister** · October 19th, 2009, 03:28 AM

chicago ban should be lifted and tn-mt should be able to control what is made and stayed in their states......states should do whatever they want as long as they dont prohibit firearms

**Yellowfin** · October 19th, 2009, 12:45 PM

It goes a bit further, actually. The states cannot restrict firearms, period, under the 10th Amendment. The states have rights to address matters and handle all things not handled by the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment addresses firearms restrictions saying there can be none, so it's off the table entirely. The states have no "right" to restrict freedoms entitled to citizens by virtue of being a United States citizen, nor that of being a human being which inherently has freedoms. We are that first and foremost.