Chicago Gun Ban Case

[Logan Darklighter]

A friend of mine posted the following:

..On the Chicago Gun ban
case before the Supreme Court

I have been asked to give my opinion on the up coming case in front of
the Supreme Court on the Chicago gun ban. Read this and understand where
I come from...
I am a believer in the right of all people to
defend themselves..I am ardently pro gun...
but....in this
case...the City of Chicago is right
...sorry folks..and the Kelo
decision does not apply.
WHAT....WHY you ask...
Simple: 2 things

1: Kelo dealt with Washington D.C. which is a Federal entity! The 2nd
amendment applies the the Federal government only.
2: The State of
Illinois is one of a handful of states that does NOT have in its state
constitution a '2nd amendment' provision. So..the City of Chicago can
ban handguns..it does not violate 'the rights of the people of
Illinois' because the people of Illinois according to their
constitution do not have that right.
..but Mike ..but Mike..what
about the the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments?
13th freed the slaves

14th defined what a citizen is.
15th says you can not deny suffrage
to the former slaves.
The Federal Government was created by the
States, NOT the other way around.
I OPPOSE using the 'Incorporation
Doctrine' to force the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois to
allow handguns...
just as much as I oppose it being used to force me
to give up mine in Texas.
We live in a federal system..we have
different laws in different states...(and I think that is a good
thing..if you don't fine we disagree)..and different takes on
things...official bullies be damned!

My response:

That's a well thought out argument there. A very
good catch by you on the difference between federal and state law. If
I'm for states rights (and I am) then it would be hypocritical of me to
want the Fed to mandate that Chicago give up its gun law. The federal
government should make no law abridging the right of the people to bear
arms. But that doesn't stop a state or local municipal government from
regulating it.
Just means as a citizen it's your duty not to
just pay attention every 4 years, but ALL the time and watch your local
and state legislators as well as Washington. If you want to make sure
it's impossible for a state to ban guns, get THEIR Supreme Court to make
a ruling on it, not the SCOTUS.

[ECSNorway]

My view on it is simple. The bill of rights, with one exception (the first amendment), does not explicitly prohibit Congress from infringing on the rights therein enumerated.

The first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law..."

The second reads "The right to ... shall not be infringed".

The third through eighth use similar language to the second.

4th Amendment: "The right... shall not be violated..."

6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions..."

Only one specifically restricts the Federal government. From a strict constructionist viewpoint, it can be argued that, for example:

* No legal entity, federal, state, or local, has the right to search and seizure without a warrant

* No legal entity, federal, state, or local, has the right to restrict firearms ownership and carriage

* State and local polities do have the right to endorse and establish an official religion and regulate speech and the press (unless, of course, their own state constitution or other binding document explicitly prohibits such action)
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Morganite]

Well, I like those first two arguments, that's something. It seems like a good idea for state government to fear the people too, after all.

-Morgan.

[Black Aeronaut]

*Sighs* And people wonder why I appreciate being a Native Tejano so much. If you were to try to ban the right to carry a hand gun in cities like Dallas, San Antonio, and even the ever-so-progressive City of Austin, you'd probably get laughed out onto the street.
You might get tougher laws on weapons violations passed, but outright banning? Hah.
To the people of Chicago, if this recent issue with gun bans has your knickers in a bunch, then I invite you all to come on down to Texas where the winters are shorter and kinder and every adult is allowed to carry a firearm as long as they do so responsibly. Just don't let me catch you complaining about the summers - they're every bit as bad as yours. (Navy Recruit Training, Great Lakes, IL, February-April '07; Gunner's Mate "A" School, Great Lakes, IL, April-August '07)

[Wiregeek]

*grumble*

If owning a gun makes me criminal, I guess owning a penis makes me a rapist, and owning a fist makes me a mugger.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Bob Schroeck]

...and owning a brain makes you ineligible for political office.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Ayiekie]

*grumble*

If owning a gun makes me criminal, I guess owning a penis makes me a rapist, and owning a fist makes me a mugger.

That is an awful analogy. You could use the same argument to make for legal private possession of absolutely everything and anything, from nuclear missiles to massive quantities of anthrax to aircraft carriers.
While Bob has noted in the past that he does actually believe private citizens should have the right to possess nuclear weapons, it is not a view shared by most people. The legality of possessing anything is always weighed against the harm
that possession could do to society, which is why most first world
countries ban or severely restrict the ability to carry handguns (and sometimes all guns).
I'm not really anti-gun-ownership (I'm very ambivalent about it), but if you're going to let private citizens tote handguns, then they should be required to be extensively trained, tested and certified in their use. And anyone convicted of using them irresponsibly should have them taken away for life. That's not really much more onerous than the laws about driving cars, and I see no reason why handguns should not be more heavily regulated than cars.

[Black Aeronaut]

Ayiekie wrote:

---

I'm not really anti-gun-ownership (I'm very ambivalent about it), but if you're going to let private citizens tote handguns, then they should be required to be extensively trained, tested and certified in their use. And anyone convicted of using them irresponsibly should have them taken away for life. That's not really much more onerous than the laws about driving cars, and I see no reason why handguns should not be more heavily regulated than cars.

I feel pretty much the same way about it myself.  The Japanese seem to have a similar attitude in regards to scaling responsibility - penalties for traffic accidents are extreme, to the point where all drivers involved in an accident are considered at fault because if you carry a license to drive, then you are considered, in the eyes of Japanese law, to be a professional driver.
Same applies to guns in the Land of the Rising Sun.  Pretty much banned outright, though I think there is some hunting allowed.  If so, I'm pretty sure the laws regarding hunting rifles have even heavier penalties than those for traffic accidents.
Oh, one other interesting note about Japan, and a another possible reason why violent crime is rare here: approval for the death penalty in this country has never once dropped below fifty percent in their entire history as a democratically rulled country.  And though rare, they will put someone between the ages of eighteen (considered adulthood in most 1st World Nations) and twenty (adulthood in Japan) on Death Row if the offense is severe enough.
  

[Ayiekie]

The death penalty has been specifically proven, many times over, to have no effect on reducing crime levels. People do not generally commit crimes with the expectation of getting caught (indeed, people rarely commit crimes with much forethought at all, funnily enough).

Japan's historically low crime rate (although it has risen significantly since the bursting of their economic bubble) would likely have to do with cultural factors and their general prosperity. There are other less pleasant factors too (such as how the police handle and report crimes, and the fact that many, many sexual assaults and harassment go unreported and even more did in the past).

[Norgarth]

The Death Penalty does cut down on repeat offenders somewhat, though. Might have more of a deterrant effect if people didn't spend 10+ years on Death Row as well. Then again, it might not. *shrugs*
___________________________
"I've always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific." - George Carlin

[Valles]

Also, at least when done in the style of American jurisprudence, IIRC it's actually more expensive to put someone on Death Row - what with verification, appeals, and the like - than to lock them up for eighty years.

So, on a purely utilitarian level, it should probably be done away with. Personally, I can't say I care either way, much as with gun ownership. 'State's Rights', OTOH, is a pointless historical curiosity that has no place in a practical discussion of lawmaking.
===========

===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."

[Black Aeronaut]

'State's Rights', OTOH, is a pointless historical curiosity that has no place in a practical discussion of lawmaking.

I dunno.  I rather like the option of being able to go to a place where things are run a little more to my liking.  You have to remember that the laws of a State are as much part of the regional culture.
  

[Ayiekie]

The Death Penalty does cut down on repeat offenders somewhat, though. Might have more of a deterrant effect if people didn't spend 10+ years on Death Row as well. Then again, it might not. *shrugs*

First, it is wholly demonstrable that people are wrongfully convicted of capital crimes in modern advanced states such as Canada and the United States. I believe in the very ancient ethical axiom (going all the way back to the Bible and restated many times by thinkers and legalists in the last 20 centuries) that it is better that guilty people go free than that innocent people suffer. Innocents suffering wrongfully is of course unavoidable under any justice system that includes prisons (fun fact - the Roman Republic didn't have a prison system, nor any legal mechanism of imprisonment), but obviously killing an innocent person is a lot more irreversible than imprisonment.
Second, I think it is morally very murky for states to engage in legal murder under any circumstance. Even were the death penalty an effective deterrent to crime rates - and the virtually unanimous conclusion of studies on the subject is that it is either harmful or has no discernible effect on them - I think it would be an extremely morally dubious act. Due to its lack of any clear effectiveness and the absolute certainty that it will involve the state murdering innocent people, I don't see how it can be justified in a civilised state. It offers no benefit (the people committed of capital crimes would virtually never be freed in any case, barring of course cases where they were wrongfully convicted or society's views on their actions have changed), and has numerous drawbacks.

[Ayiekie]

I dunno.  I rather like the option of being able to go to a place where things are run a little more to my liking.  You have to remember that the laws of a State are as much part of the regional culture.

Sure, but without qualification, you could say any nation-state fills the same criteria.
The US notion of state's rights, historically, lies in the fact that when these rights were drawn up, states had to have some autonomy due to the technological level of the time meaning that the federal government could not quickly render any sort of decision or even communicate on a timely basis with the state. This obviously became a near-obsolete concept with the completion of country-wide telegraph and rail systems. The federal government could now (at least on a technological level) learn about and respond more swiftly to any event in Alaska than a Founding Father could get home from dinner.
This isn't to say I don't think states should have any rights, because some things are simply better handled on the "ground level" with an understanding of local conditions that central authorities don't possess. The mushy middle between obviously federal responsibilities (national defence, foreign policy) and obviously municipal/local responsibilities (fire services, urban planning) where states should have supremacy is up for debate, though. For instance, while I am of course in favour of the decision by several states to legalise homosexual marriage, I think the rationale for states having that power is hard to follow and leads to strange legal results (as in the couple attempting to get a divorce in Texas, where their marriage is not recognised as legal), and that it and things like it contribute to the alienation of various parts of the United States from each other. I'd also argue that school systems should be under the jurisdiction of the federal government, not municipal/state (as in the US) or provincial (as in Canada).

[ECSNorway]

I'm afraid you're wrong there, Ayie. The notion of 'states' rights' does not come from that at all.

It comes from the fact that when the country was formed, and at the very least up until the Civil War, the states considered themselves to be semi-independent nations in all but name. This is why we wound up with the compromise that lead to the Congress being structured the way it is - states wanted to be certain that they could assert their power in the federal government.

It was understood, at times, that states had different cultures and wanted to have different methods and philosophies of government. Leeway was built in for each to vary according to their own method, and to let people 'vote with their feet', as it were, when it came to choosing whether or not to stay with that government.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Valles]

This makes no reference to my time.
===========

===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."

[ECSNorway]

This makes no reference to my time.

You have no chance to survive make your time ha ha ha.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Valles]

Move Zig! For great justice!
===========

===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."

[Bob Schroeck]

And here I was going to say, "hey! It's the Pope!" Silly me.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Logan Darklighter]

"Crikey! It's THE BISHOP!"
*Cue dramatic spy-theme music sting*
^_^

[Norgarth]

The Death Penalty does cut down on repeat offenders somewhat, though. Might have more of a deterrant effect if people didn't spend 10+ years on Death Row as well. Then again, it might not. *shrugs*

First, it is wholly demonstrable that people are wrongfully convicted of capital crimes in modern advanced states such as Canada and the United States. I believe in the very ancient ethical axiom (going all the way back to the Bible and restated many times by thinkers and legalists in the last 20 centuries) that it is better that guilty people go free than that innocent people suffer. Innocents suffering wrongfully is of course unavoidable under any justice system that includes prisons (fun fact - the Roman Republic didn't have a prison system, nor any legal mechanism of imprisonment), but obviously killing an innocent person is a lot more irreversible than imprisonment.
Second, I think it is morally very murky for states to engage in legal murder under any circumstance. Even were the death penalty an effective deterrent to crime rates - and the virtually unanimous conclusion of studies on the subject is that it is either harmful or has no discernible effect on them - I think it would be an extremely morally dubious act. Due to its lack of any clear effectiveness and the absolute certainty that it will involve the state murdering innocent people, I don't see how it can be justified in a civilised state. It offers no benefit (the people committed of capital crimes would virtually never be freed in any case, barring of course cases where they were wrongfully convicted or society's views on their actions have changed), and has numerous drawbacks.

It's a matter of opinion.  I don't think the death penalty is the answer to every murder conviction.  More for people who are serial killers, massmurders, or the rare nutjob that revels in their deeds.  The rabid dogs who, if released, are likely to kill again.  If the person gets enough 'consecutive life sentences without parole' that he's garunteed to die in prison, then execute him, and be done with it.
A guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with another guy, snaps and kills them both?  No, that's not something that deserves the Death Penalty.
Of course, I also think that people are sent to prison to be punished.  If it were up to me, prisoners wouldn't be able to watch cable, eat fancy meals, and so on.  If the prisoners are enjoying themselves, then the prison isn't helping.
___________________________
"I've always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific." - George Carlin

[Ayiekie]

It's a matter of opinion.  I don't think the death penalty is the answer to every murder conviction.  More for people who are serial killers, massmurders, or the rare nutjob that revels in their deeds.  The rabid dogs who, if released, are likely to kill again.  If the person gets enough 'consecutive life sentences without parole' that he's garunteed to die in prison, then execute him, and be done with it.
A guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with another guy, snaps and kills them both?  No, that's not something that deserves the Death Penalty.
Of course, I also think that people are sent to prison to be punished.  If it were up to me, prisoners wouldn't be able to watch cable, eat fancy meals, and so on.  If the prisoners are enjoying themselves, then the prison isn't helping.

It is, however, not a matter of opinion that the death penalty does not in fact reduce crime levels. This is simply fact, as borne out time and time again in the real world. What you get past that point is the ethics of state-sanctioned murder, which does become more of a matter of opinion. However, it is also not a matter of opinion but simple fact that innocent people will be murdered if there is a death penalty, and since the death penalty does absolutely no good whatsoever, I cannot think of any logical reason to support it.
And sending people to prison "to be punished" does not accomplish anything. The point of a justice system is to protect the innocent first and foremost, not to fulfill revenge wishes. Ideally, it accomplishes this both by separating dangerous individuals from the general population, and by helping those incarcerated to not commit further crimes. For those criminals who are not incurably insane or anti-social (which is most of them), you are actively impeding this goal by making prison as miserable an experience as possible. People cut off from the world and then kicked out into society years later with the many disadvantages inherent to a criminal record, no further training, and no help are very likely to commit further crimes due to a lack of other opportunities. This is bad for them as individuals, bad for the people who will be the victims of their crimes, and bad for society in general (which bears the costs of incarceration, funds for police forces, and so forth).
So, in short, if the prison is not helping reduce recidivism, that is what "isn't helping". The existence of cable or "fancy meals" has nothing to do with the actual purpose of the justice system. Few people commit crimes with the intent of being sent to prison due to its luxury. If someone ever does, that probably says a lot more about the horrificness of the society than it does about the luxury of the prisons.

[Wiregeek]

none of which has any bearing at all on the foolishness of banning firearms.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Ayiekie]

Topic drift, it happens. Did you have something new to say on the firearm issue, or a response to what has already been said, or are you just complaining?

[Wiregeek]

complaining.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies