Is the Chicago Gun Ban Court case a victory for states rights or a whack against Liberty?

But, on private property, it is permissible that the owner can dictate that you cannot enter with arms. Though to my knowledge in "common areas" like malls or restaurants or bars, where public foot-traffic is in essence, more like a "town square," in some some states like AZ, if an establishment chooses to restrict firearms on private property that has common foot-traffic, the owner is required to give a notice: to leave it in their cars, or provide lockboxes be it for a fee, or free. Though as it stands, anywhere where alcohol is served, currently it's banned, as far as I know.

Personally, I highly disagree, precisely because it is at bars and restaurants that historically criminals come to rob, or a patron goes postal. There should always be an armed soul, NOT drunk, be able to defend himself and/or others if a drunkard patron, or a sober thief happen to come along. It's not as if 90% of patrons at a bar, go there with the intention of getting drunk, or indeed get drunk. If the law says you're not legally drunk, unless at a certain percent of inebriation, and are obviously legal to operate a car, then the same should apply to firearms.

When it comes to private property, a situation of voluntary entry or an invitation to enter, or consent, is required. Thus, a citizen have the option to do so, or not. By agreeing to the private property owner's terms of entry, it is understood that you do so voluntarily. If you decline the terms of entry, then you do so voluntarily, so you nor the property owner are violating anyone's rights.

But, even if you do enter the private property under the terms that you disarm before entry, you're not giving up your right to defend yourself, per se: if the owner turns out to be a homicidal maniac and you defend yourself lethally with whatever object nearby within the premises, that's a justifiable homicide. Just as the "Castle Doctrine" does not automatically mean that one can commit violence against anyone who happen to enter his private property.

Again, all this is stated with the assumption that everyone actually know to uphold the Constitution, as intended. But EVERY town, county, State, and Federal has "reasonable regulations" AGAINST 2nd Amendment RIGHT.

Though, even as a public property, it is debatable whether one should be allowed to enter armed, into courts or council halls, or Congressional floor, as debates are often controversial and can elicit emotionally charged response from all those involved in the debate, or a trial. But then again, I suppose if that were the case, no one should be able to carry arms, in any possibly emotive circumstances.

My personal views, based on principles, is that other than on private property, we should NEVER be denied our right to defend ourselves with firearms. But, I submit, courtroom situation is contentious, precisely because be it voluntary (civil case), or involuntary (criminal case), two parties intentionally enter a situation and an edifice where they're committed to a decision that can actually change the fate of one's livelihood; a situation where it is a damn near certainty that it will illicit an involuntary emotional response.

Better minds may be able to adjudicate the legalities of that further. Even though I choose to believe that there are more people that are good, than insidiously misguided ones, and that we're all better off with freedoms to choose but be responsible for our own actions, however, at the same token, I'm too practical and cognizant of human nature to dismiss the reality of the consequences of bringing firearms to a courtroom. I suppose if a citizen is NOT related to anyone involved in a given lawsuit, perhaps one can make the case that they may be allowed to enter armed. Then, they'd have to come up with some type of a vetting process for every court case, to make sure that NO relatives, friends, associate, or acquaintance of the defendant or the plaintiff can be allowed to enter, if armed.

From a legal stand point, the Statists will always make the excuse that if security can be reasonably provided be it by a private security firm, or by the police, especially in a confined space like a building or a warehouse, they can restrict your right to defend yourself. But then again, if that were true, NO one would be legally armed; there is no such thing as 100% secure or even reasonable security. Plus, SCOTUS has ruled time and time again, that cops are NOT REQUIRED to protect you.

So the question becomes, why do we have them again?

In a perfect world, the police would really only conduct themselves in a Constitutional manner. They will only be required to do administrative tasks and investigations, AFTER a crime has been committed. Like it or not, in a truly free society, there is no room for an asininely and bureaucratically unquantifiable role of a govt to "PREVENT CRIMES." That's not their job. That kind of lunacy is precisely why they have all manner of excuses approaching a policy to conduct "pre-crimes," now fast approaching that of Minority Report levels.

Currently, it's no secret, cops serve no other purpose than to keep sucking the taxpayers dry: as all branches of gvt, they produce nothing. They are now only known to harass citizens, commit political profiling, and wage war against our Constitutional Rights, daily, in the manner of taser & taser-death for mere non-compliance; a chance to try out their latest toys bought with the excuse of War on Terror and War on Drugs, FED money.

But most insidious of all, they have now become nothing more than a political police that seek to profile political dissent and cover their own asses and their perceived bureaucratic masters. They are NOT "peace officers" when an agenda driven "informant" is used to locate a wrong address, and the local SWAT (which EVERY ho-dunk town seems to have one nowadays), is used to erroneous RAID TWO WRONG homes a day, MURDERING one citizen in the process, A DAY, EVERYDAY! That is the current FBI statistic. Does it occur to them to do a simple recon, to make sure, if nothing else to save themselves from legal liabilities and expensive PR, before suiting up with wannabe hero gear to raid the wrong frakking address?

Oh we're in such deep, serious doodoo..

The Government has no right to ban guns either state or federal or local.

The smoking issue is different for the role of Government is to protect LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY. There is a strong argument about smoking bans considering second hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer and other deadly diseases. I am a smoker and I do not smoke in my own house nor do I allow anyone else to smoke in my house. As you stated though this is not a good comparison.

www.retakecongress.com

www.revolutionbroadcasting.com