Mcdonald V Chicago

don your hats and ponchos for the impending shit storm...I still hope that there might be some civility in debating the topic. Therefore here are the things I understand to be relevant to the topic, if you think I've missed anything of the underlying principals that we will base the debate around please make that clear and separate from the rest of your argument.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I think it's fair to request that all arguments based on what the 2nd amendment says should include the full reading.

District of Columbia V Heller(2008):

The judges ruled that D.C. could not prohibit the private ownership of Hand guns within the city because D.C. is a federal enclave (not a state government). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense (see above in the text of 2nd amendment where it refers to a 'well regulated militia').

Background of Chicago:

There is no doubt that Chicago has had a history of crime issues. City law makers sought to resolve these issue of crime by banning hand guns (1982). It is important to note that the City law makers are representatives of the population, thus you can say that the people of Chicago voted to ban handguns.

*14th Amendment: *I am not entirely clear on how this plays into the debate, I hope someone like JD, (who has knowledge about this sort of stuff can bring it into the light) What I understand is that the 14th has a Due Process Clause which has been used to extend most of the Bill of Rights to the states -- whether this applies to the 2nd amendment I do not know

Long text found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Due_Process_Clause

Important notes on the case:

1. In the context of the Bill of Rights, the second Amendment is in place to protect the State from the Federal Government. The right to bear arms has (up until 2008) only been understood to protect a State's ability to have a state army.

2. Typically republicans/conservatives do not support the idea of Washington bureaucrats micro-managing state decisions. They would rather the state have the power to decide what is right for their own population.



I'll leave it here for now. Please remember to keep it clean and be honest. If you don't know what you're talking about -- admit it & ask questions.