Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Langhorne, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    448
    Rep Power
    5266

    Default Fox News on Chicago Gun Restrictions vs. Washington etc.

    Numbers don't lie....
    What Do the Supremes Think of Chicago's Gun Ban?
    By John Lott - FOXNews.com

    If the government can’t protect its citizens, a majority of the Supreme Court appears to believe that people should be allowed to defend themselves.

    Courtesy: John R. Lott, Jr.

    Does a ban on guns constitute a "reasonable regulation"? Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago sure thinks so. "We have the right for health and safety to pass reasonable laws dealing with the protection and health of the people of the city of Chicago," Daley said. Despite the push by Chicago to make McDonald v. City of Chicago about crime, a majority on the Supreme Court today appeared to want nothing to do that argument. Justice Anthony Kennedy described the right to self-defense as being as "fundamental" as the right to freedom of speech. The question the court faces is how many of Chicago’s regulations beyond the ban should survive.

    Two years ago, the Supreme Court said a ban wasn't a "reasonable regulation" when it came to regulations that the federal government can impose-- that there is an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to individuals allowing them to own handguns for self defense. They also ruled that people's guns cannot be required to be locked up and unloaded, since that would make it difficult for people to use them for self-defense.

    The question that the Supreme Court addressed today in oral arguments is whether the same reasoning can be applied to state and city regulations. The Bill of Rights was originally passed to make clear that there were limits on what the federal government could do. It was only after the Civil War that Republicans in Congress passed the 14th Amendment to apply those same restrictions to states to protect citizens' freedom. Even more important, much of the Congressional debate focused on stopping Southern states from banning newly freed blacks from owning guns.

    While much of the Bill of Rights has been "incorporated" to apply to the states through the 14th Amendment, so far the Supreme Court has not explicitly applied this to the Second Amendment. It's hard to believe the Court believes that part or all of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments apply to the states (the parts of the Bill of Rights that have so far reached the Supreme Court on this issue), but not the Second Amendment. It is this constitutional issue that is before the Supreme Court today, not whether gun control would be an expedient way to cut down on crime. Nevertheless, it is hard for anybody, including Supreme Court Justices, to ignore safety questions. Obviously, it is this latter issue that Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago hopes the court will focus on. And indeed, today James Feldman, an attorney defending the Chicago handgun ban, repeatedly tried to argue that Chicago’s law was needed to cut down on murder and suicide.

    Gun control is often framed as a trade-off between freedom and safety, but as I discuss in my book, more guns don't cause more crime. Research shows that freedom and safety go together. If there are any doubts about this, we can simply look at the District of Columbia and its huge -- 25 percent! -- drop in its murder rate the year after the Supreme Court struck down its gun control laws. Much of that drop was undoubtedly due to the court striking down the gunlock requirement on rifle and shotguns, since Washington continued making it difficult for people to register handguns.


    But Chicago does not need to look beyond its own immediate neighborhood for evidence. The figure at the top of this piece from the forthcoming third edition of my book "More Guns, Less Crime" shows how Chicago’s murder rates changed relative to the rates in the adjacent counties. In the five years before the ban, Chicago’s murder rate fell by 28 percent relative to those counties. (County level crime data only goes back to 1977.) In the five years after the ban, Chicago’s murder rate doubled relative to those other counties. The patterns are also similar when Chicago's or Washington's murder rates are compared to other large cities or the U.S. as a whole, where gun laws are much less strict.

    We all want to take guns away from criminals. But all too often, gun control laws mainly serve to disarm law-abiding citizens instead. Police play an extremely important protecting people, indeed probably they are THE single most important factor, when it comes to individual safety. But, as the police know all too well, they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has been committed. If the government can’t protect its citizens, a majority of the Supreme Court appears to believe that people should be allowed to defend themselves.

    John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press). The book’s third edition will be published in May."

    The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living
    with power to endanger the public liberty. -John Adams

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Dover, Pennsylvania
    (York County)
    Age
    53
    Posts
    2,554
    Rep Power
    981030

    Default Re: Fox News on Chicago Gun Restrictions vs. Washington etc.

    I'm sorry but charts and graphs only work if the data is manipulated in order to support global warming. If it supports freedoms and firearms, you must argue that you can't prove causation.
    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
    - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    .
    Posts
    8,196
    Rep Power
    10673760

    Default Re: Fox News on Chicago Gun Restrictions vs. Washington etc.

    I just happened to be surfing the channels, and heard O'shitty talking about MacDonald...........

    He and his guest all FAILED!!!!!!

    1 guest was Penny Lee...........

    ring a bell anyone?????????

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Langhorne, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    448
    Rep Power
    5266

    Default Re: Fox News on Chicago Gun Restrictions vs. Washington etc.

    the democratic strategist?

    well...anywho..it's nice to get a voice on our side from Fox

    The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living
    with power to endanger the public liberty. -John Adams

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Carbondale, Pennsylvania
    (Lackawanna County)
    Age
    38
    Posts
    993
    Rep Power
    442

    Default Re: Fox News on Chicago Gun Restrictions vs. Washington etc.

    I actually listened to this a little while ago at a friends house.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy described the right to self-defense as being as "fundamental" as the right to freedom of speech.

    I can't tell you how happy I am to read and hear that out of a Justices mouth.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    (Lehigh County)
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,952
    Rep Power
    921799

    Default Re: Fox News on Chicago Gun Restrictions vs. Washington etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by mickey01023 View Post
    Justice Anthony Kennedy described the right to self-defense as being as "fundamental" as the right to freedom of speech.
    It's about damn time, that's probably 1 vote in favor of not just incorporation, but strict scrutiny as well.

    Here's to hoping!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shelby, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,438
    Rep Power
    11308225

    Default Re: Fox News on Chicago Gun Restrictions vs. Washington etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by mickey01023 View Post
    Justice Anthony Kennedy described the right to self-defense as being as "fundamental" as the right to freedom of speech
    Quote Originally Posted by IronSight View Post
    It's about damn time, that's probably 1 vote in favor of not just incorporation, but strict scrutiny as well.
    "The right to self defense" is NOT the same thing as "The right to keep and bear arms."

    They can talk about "the right to self defense" until they are blue in the face and it won't mean squat with respect to 2A.

    This ruling is going to be a complete and utter disaster because it will only serve to DIMINISH the rights that we currently have. If they incorporate 2A as it was defined in Heller, then we're all screwed, and the antis will have won a HUGE victory.

    I still can't see how you guys think Heller was a victory when it was a stunning defeat. Heller said the 2A defines in individual right to keep and bear arms in the home, and in the home ONLY. That is NOT the definition of 2A that we want incorporated.

    HUGE... STUNNING... DEFEAT.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    (Lehigh County)
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,952
    Rep Power
    921799

    Default Re: Fox News on Chicago Gun Restrictions vs. Washington etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by ehidle View Post
    "The right to self defense" is NOT the same thing as "The right to keep and bear arms."

    They can talk about "the right to self defense" until they are blue in the face and it won't mean squat with respect to 2A.

    This ruling is going to be a complete and utter disaster because it will only serve to DIMINISH the rights that we currently have. If they incorporate 2A as it was defined in Heller, then we're all screwed, and the antis will have won a HUGE victory.

    I still can't see how you guys think Heller was a victory when it was a stunning defeat. Heller said the 2A defines in individual right to keep and bear arms in the home, and in the home ONLY. That is NOT the definition of 2A that we want incorporated.

    HUGE... STUNNING... DEFEAT.
    And if you read the transcript the justices specifically talk about how the right to keep and bear arms is what's written down in the constitution, not the "right to self defense" which means, basically, that they are using the "right to self defense" as support to uphold that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right. That is a good thing.

    Heller was a good thing, but it covered only a very small issue, what it and McDonald will combine to do is allow challenges to the idea that you can only keep or bear arms in your own home. Gura has already filed a lawsuit along these lines and I'm going to bet he wins again. Heller did NOT say that "the 2A defines in individual right to keep and bear arms in the home, and in the home ONLY", all it did was rule against the idea that the second amendment DIDN'T cover keeping or bearing arms in ones home. Other 2A arguments were left for another day.

    The end result of all of this is that there will be minimum federal standards put into place over time on what constitutes a "reasonable restriction" on the right to keep or bear arms. Without such a standard the states have had free reign to destroy and trample on these rights to a fairly unlimited degree. Heller and McDonald will never restore the true meaning of the second amendment, but they sure as hell saved it from being utterly destroyed.

    Just imagine what kind of hell would have ensued if the liberal justices dominated the court when a case like Heller reached it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shelby, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,438
    Rep Power
    11308225

    Default Re: Fox News on Chicago Gun Restrictions vs. Washington etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by IronSight View Post
    Just imagine what kind of hell would have ensued if the liberal justices dominated the court when a case like Heller reached it.
    I am thankful for that every day, but nevertheless, I still don't consider Heller to be a particularly victorious decision. A complete victory is when a) SCOTUS says 2A is the individual right to keep and bear ANY arms EVERYWHERE and b) no government has the right to restrict them in any way.

    An acceptable victory for now would simply be to rule that 2A is the RTKBA anywhere a person lawfully happens to be, while retaining the current illegal restrictions on MGs and other firearms.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Nowhere, Wyoming
    Posts
    753
    Rep Power
    1532

    Default Re: Fox News on Chicago Gun Restrictions vs. Washington etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by ehidle View Post
    I am thankful for that every day, but nevertheless, I still don't consider Heller to be a particularly victorious decision. A complete victory is when a) SCOTUS says 2A is the individual right to keep and bear ANY arms EVERYWHERE and b) no government has the right to restrict them in any way.

    An acceptable victory for now would simply be to rule that 2A is the RTKBA anywhere a person lawfully happens to be, while retaining the current illegal restrictions on MGs and other firearms.
    The problem with that is it would mean you could arm yourself with a nuke. Legally.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Chicago gun case
    By mrjam2jab in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 30th, 2009, 07:13 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 27th, 2009, 04:10 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 21st, 2008, 04:50 PM
  4. Good News/Bad News
    By larrymeyer in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 12th, 2008, 05:26 PM
  5. Someone with a little sense in Chicago
    By squinn in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 24th, 2008, 07:58 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •