Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page

NOTE! This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or any other living person besides the one who posted them. Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion Policy, but there's a bad apple in every bunch, and we have no control over bigots and other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com

The Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:

Supreme Court gun case could imperil basis of state laws
Submitted by: Bruce W. Krafft

There are 3 comments on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments

"The US Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in a case that could affect the ability of states and cities to pass gun bans, and, more broadly, could shift the balance of power between the states and Washington."

"If the Supreme Court rules in favor of a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns, it could lead to a slew of challenges against state laws on everything, not just guns."

"The Supreme Court will rule on McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case in which a Chicago resident has challenged that city's handgun ban as unconstitutional."

"But the case goes much further than the typical bickering over the Second Amendment. That's because it has more to do with the 14th Amendment than it does with the Second." ...

Comment by: xqqme (3/1/2010)

Wrong... wrong... wrong!

The author of the piece forgets that there are THREE parties to the contract known as the Constitution: the federal government and the States, yes, but what about...

WE, The People.

It is OUR RIGHTS that neither the States nor the central national government must infringe, disparage, or deny, and it is the responsibility of both the States and the Federal Government to restrain the other in deference to THE PEOPLE.

Comment by: Outland (3/2/2010)

Invoke the specter of incorporation and suddenly even Constitutional scholars are struck blind and doomed to stumble and mumble their way through the maze of bewildering contradictions it represents until in hopeless confusion they forget what the question was.

Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the states united apply to the individual states?

Forty three states said yes it does and included such language in their own State Constitutions. The question of whether or not cities can make up their own ad hominem laws in defiance of state law is resolved through preemption.

The problem with Chicago is found in the fourth version of the Illinois Constitution adopted in 1970 that grants "home rule" to large municipalities.

Comment by: curtis41 (3/2/2010)

I hope the Supreme Court gives guidance, or at least a hint, to what types of actions states may NOT take on firearms. Several states have been skirting (ignoring?) the Constitution and even their own state constitutions. Bans and defacto bans on private ownership of firearms should stop, and apply to all states, as well as the District. Neither side of the case will be totally satisfied, and expect the gun grabbers to go back, and then proceed to see how they can get around the present case ruling and order. My sense is particular legislation by cities and states will still require adjudication in the courts for obvious legal issues. A favorable ruling in McDonald v Chicago would serve to make unconstitutional outright bans.