Southern Avenger - Gunning Down the Constitution

creating rights(, which must really be privileges?)

Since this could derail the thread, I'll stop here. Just thought that very curious.

The Bill of Rights was instituted for the express purpose of preventing member-States from imposing laws that were in conflict with the basic individual freedom tenets of the Constitution. They exist to ensure inalienable individual rights among the (voluntary) member States. Hell... it was the only reason for them to form a confederacy, wasn't it? Otherwise, why not remain in a structure of 13 individual Republics?

Following Jack's logic; would it be OK for a State to propose legislation to legalize slavery? That would be in violation of the Bill of Rights, wouldn't it?

Chicago, nor any other local government, has the authority to limit gun ownership or possession- Even for the mentally-challenged, felons or anyone else you may happen to not like or be afraid of. Inalienable rights cannot be applied selectively at the whim of society. Real Freedom is a big job.

Now... the real trick is to figure-out why the Supreme-Team voted this way?

address. His basic premise is that the 2nd amendment, from the founders' perspective, established that the central government was to have nothing to do with an individual's right to keep and bear arms, but that the amendment provided no such restriction that was binding upon the state legislatures. Fair enough. Unfortunately, the central government takes no such view of the 2nd amendment and has produced much legislation (more often than not, through the constitutionally dubious use of interstate commerce regulation) that does indeed provide the practical result of infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

While I can agree with his basic premise, I would find the argument far more forceful if federal regulation of gun production, distribution and ownership were eliminated in favor of reliance upon the ability and right of each state to make their own laws regarding arms ownership.

In the instant case, the Illinois state constitution states, in Article 1, Section 22:

"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (as amended in 1970)

The clause uses the words "only" and "police power". Therefore, only the police power of the state can be invoked in order to infringe upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms. No other basis is constitutionally valid, at least according to that section of the Illinois constitution. Is this what is being done in Illinois? Perhaps, from the standpoint of the state constitution, it may be the case that an Illinois state court may find that such municipal acts are within the scope of Article 1, Section 22. At the time that section was adopted, there was considerable confusion as to its exact meaning. The phrase "subject only to the police power" has been practically interpreted as meaning "unless the legislature says otherwise". However, as the video points out, and correctly, that issue is one for the citizens of Illinois to fight out with their state legislators; not in the federal courts or in the U.S. congress.

Yeah, I agree with that sentiment. Even "libertarian" centralization is still centralization, the most dangerous thing there is. I was disappointed that the Judge seems to be in favor of the nine be-costumed goofballs known as the "Supreme" Court ruling against Chicago. The so-called Incorporation Doctrine is a much bigger threat to the liberties of many more people than the tinpot dictatorship of Chicago's stupid and evil ban on its subjects' self-defense.

but I will watch the video.

I will also read the S Ct opinion when it becomes available, because the rationale, either way, will be important to state rights.