Shot in the Dark

Court To Peasants: “Your Lives Are Not Worth Defending. Die, Peasant Scum”

Chicago has the most absurdly restrictive gun laws in the United States; worse than New York, worse than DC.  There is no legal civilian handgun ownership in the City of Chicago.

Chicago is also in the midst of a maelstrom of gang violence; bangers, armed with any damn weapon they want, are mowing each other and innocent bystanders down at a pace that looks likely to easily break the records set during Prohibition.

Fortunately, the US Court of Appeals is on the case, as it were, ruling that while gang bangers roam the streets unimpeded by law enforcement, the rigorously law-abiding citizen can not be trusted with firearms:

The unanimous three-judge orc panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

“The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge orc Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court orc decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.

The Fairfax, Virginia-based NRA sued the municipalities in June 2008, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a hand-gun ban in the U.S. capital district encompassing Washington.

As expected, the suits will go to the Supreme Court, which will hopefully rule that human rights – including the right to defend ones’ self, family, property and community – aren’t subject to the deranged whim of corrupt scumbag politicans.

Will this suit be the one that pushes Heller down to state level?

In Heller, the high court struck down Washington’s 32-year- old gun law, which barred most residents of the city from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six residents had challenged the law, saying they wanted firearms available in their homes for self-defense.

“Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government,” Easterbrook the chief orc wrote, “while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state.”

There was a time local politicians said the same thing about the practice of owning other human beings; it was for the states to decide.  We know how that turned out, don’t we?

States can’t morally infringe law-abiding free speech, religion, press, assembly, jury trials, protections against unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment; they can’t even stick soldiers in your rumpus room against your will.  The right to defend ones’ life, family, community and property from lethal threats is easily as important as any of those – indeed, more important on a personal level.

Hopefully logic will prevail as it did last June, when this thing does get to the SCOTUS.

UPDATE: Enh.  Never mind.  The ruling makes sense on purely legal grounds and – given the NRA’s post-Heller strategy – could be good in the long run for gun rights.

Which is not to say that Chicago’s government’s approach to armed citizens is in any way moral or forgiveable, or that the anti-gun movement aren’t a bunch of vultures.

But that’s a battle for another day.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

32 responses to “Court To Peasants: “Your Lives Are Not Worth Defending. Die, Peasant Scum””

  1. K-Rod Avatar
    K-Rod

    Since dissent is no longer patriotic, all speech not praising Obama is strictly verboten on the state and municipal level… First Amendment, doesn’t apply to states and municipalities.

  2. LearnedFoot Avatar

    Hands off Easterbrook & Posner.

    This was rightly decided. Heller left open (quite explicitly I recall) the question whether the incorporation doctrine applied to the 2nd amendment. For the 7th Circuit to claim so without precedent would be…

    …there’s a term for it. Wait. It’s coming to me…

    Oh, I’m sure it’ll come to me…

  3. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    Foot,

    True, and you are correct – legally.

    But I’m not a lawyer. I’m a citizen who is concerned with the “outcomes” from a couple of generations of stupid legislation backed by stupid rulings.

    And I’m completely aware that this ruling is a necessary step to the Supremes and/or some form of legislation addressing the systematic devaluation of the lives of the law-abiding citizen.

    So I, speaking as a peasant who is not and will never be admitted to any bar that doesn’t have a happy hour, am making Easterbrook and Posner the whipping boys for my more-general anger with and impatience for all of the intellectual infrastructure of victim disarmament.

    Because it’s possible to do everything right, for all the right reasons, and still be wrong.

  4. LearnedFoot Avatar

    “am making Easterbrook and Posner the whipping boys for my more-general anger with and impatience for all of the intellectual infrastructure of victim disarmament.”

    And this is completely and utterly unfair and is the reason why I am not an activist. The fact that this was a unanimous decision in the 7th Circuit that was authored Easterbrook and joined by Richard FREAKING Posner tells me you are irredeamably wrong in your assessment of this case.

    This case turned not on gun rights or the interpretation of the 2nd amendment but on federalism, which, up until about 30 minutes ago, I thought you were in favor of. The fact that the people running Chicago and Oak Park and those who elected them are flaming dipshits is irrelevant.

  5. LearnedFoot Avatar

    If it makes you feel any better. there’s this at the end of the article:

    “A San Francisco-based federal appeals court, with jurisdiction over cases from California, Oregon, Washington and six other Western U.S. states, in April ruled the Second Amendment can be read as applicable to states and counties.”

    That’s a conflict amon the circuit courts which is a gangbusters way to get cert.

  6. Slash Avatar
    Slash

    > “A San Francisco-based federal appeals court, with jurisdiction over cases from California, Oregon, Washington and six other Western U.S. states, in April ruled the Second Amendment can be read as applicable to states and counties.”

    Liberal frickin’ activist Ninth Circuit.

    Sotomayorize ’em!
    /jc

  7. Bike Bubba Avatar
    Bike Bubba

    I still think those judges ought to be removed; there were a number of 19th century cases (see Akhil Reed Amar’s book on the 14th Amendment) that document clear precedent of the 2nd Amendment being incorporated against the states.

    And quite frankly, exactly what part of “the right of the people…shall not be infringed” is so darned hard to understand?

  8. LearnedFoot Avatar

    “I still think those judges ought to be removed”

    *facepalm*

  9. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    The fact that this was a unanimous decision in the 7th Circuit that was authored Easterbrook and joined by Richard FREAKING Posner tells me you are irredeamably wrong in your assessment of this case.

    This case turned not on gun rights or the interpretation of the 2nd amendment but on federalism, which, up until about 30 minutes ago, I thought you were in favor of. The fact that the people running Chicago and Oak Park and those who elected them are flaming dipshits is irrelevant.

    A fair point. Or two of them.

    A burrito for thought.

  10. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    you are irredeamably wrong in your assessment of this case.

    Probably entirely right and fair.

    Hence my note “I’m aware that this ruling is a necessary step to the Supremes and/or some form of legislation…” which is, I’d like to think, a Federalist sentiment beneath my admittedly peevish outburst.

  11. LearnedFoot Avatar

    “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.”

    -Learned Hand.

    Kick ass name.

  12. angryclown Avatar
    angryclown

    Mitch prattled: “There was a time local politicians said the same thing about the practice of owning other human beings; it was for the states to decide. We know how that turned out, don’t we?”

    Yeah, that’s real similar.

    Impeach those liberal activists, Posner and Easterbrook!

  13. joelr Avatar

    Yup; Foot nailed it.

    Mitch, I understand where you’re coming from, but this gives Gura a good appeal to the SCOTUS, and is there any better case/lawyer you know of for this? I mean, it looked to me like we might end up stuck with the NY nunchuks case.

    This is good news; if we can win on this, this is the best thing that could happen.

  14. padraigtim Avatar
    padraigtim

    Mitch,
    You realize the link at “mowing each other and innocent bystanders down” was from April 1994? That’s a pretty long “midsts”

    paddy

  15. Bike Bubba Avatar
    Bike Bubba

    Foot, I’m reading the Heller decision right now, and I don’t see what you’re talking about–it’s certainly not clearly in the summary. Rather, the opinion makes pretty much the same case as does Amar; that 19th century precedent incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states.

    The closest I can come to that claim is a footnote about page 50. If you see something obvious that I don’t, let me know, but as far as I can tell, this decision is clearly on the wrong side of both the 2nd Amendment and the Heller decision.

    Throw the bums out.

  16. Jay Reding Avatar

    The whole incorporation doctrine is a mistake that needs to be rectified.

    Basically, the way the 14th Amendment works today is that the Bill of Rights is applied to the states through the Due Process Clause (not to be confused with the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause). But that’s not the way the 14th Amendment was supposed to work. Instead, there’s another clause – the “Privileges and Immunities Clause” that was supposed to apply all of the first eight of the Bill of Rights to the states.

    But, in 1873, the Supreme Court (in the aptly named Slaugherhouse Cases) basically took that clause out of the Constitution for practical intents and purposes.

    Ever since then, the incorporation doctrine has been a bloody mess with piecemeal incorporation of rights rather than the intended full incorporation. It’s reduced our economic liberties, our personal liberties, and gone against the intent of the Framers of the Constitution.

    Sadly, however, it’s not going to change without a Supreme Court that would be willing to overrule such long-standing precedent or a new constitutional amendment. We’re living with the aftermath of a series of wrongly-decided cases from 1873, and that mess is what the Seventh Circuit has to apply.

    The result here was legally correct, even if the law is wrong and should be changed. But restrained judges will apply the law as it is, not as they would like it to be, and that’s what the panel did in that case.

  17. LearnedFoot Avatar

    Here’s a summary that confirms my memory of this (believe it or not, it’s been several years since I even thought about the incorporation doctrine – yes, it’s true):

    http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/Media%20Readings/Incorporation_Doctrine.htm

    “At this point, the only provisions of the first eight amendments that have not been incorporated are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the 5th Amendment’s requirement of grand jury indictment, and the 7th Amendment. The remainder has been expressly incorporated into the 14th Amendment via its due process clause and so now applies to the state as well as the federal government.”

  18. LearnedFoot Avatar

    Bubbba –

    Heller 128 S.Ct. 2783 at pgs 2812, 2813:

    “United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. *2813 The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.” 92 U.S., at 553 . States, we said, were free to restrict or protect the right under their police powers. The limited discussion of the Second Amendment in Cruikshank supports, if anything, the individual-rights interpretation. There was no claim in Cruikshank that the victims had been deprived of their right to carry arms in a militia; indeed, the Governor had disbanded the local militia unit the year before the mob’s attack, see C. Lane, The Day Freedom Died 62 (2008). We described the right protected by the Second Amendment as “ ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose’ ” FN22 and said that “the people [must] look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes” to the States’ police power. 92 U.S., at 553. That discussion makes little sense if it is only a right to bear arms in a state militia.”

    Still with me? Good. Footnote 23:

    “With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538, 14 S.Ct. 874, 38 L.Ed. 812 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”

    My Westlaw-fu is unparalleled.

  19. penigma Avatar

    Damn, I hate agreeing with Foot, or rather, when he agrees with me.

    As you might recall, Mitch, I told you about incorporation more than a year ago, when Heller was up for consideration. At the time, as now, you didn’t understand it or accept it. Yet, unlike with Foot, you dismissed it as trivial.

    Then of course, Scalia pointedly stated that Heller didn’t incorporate the 2nd – which I reacted to as “Scalias got no balls”, he refrained from finally deciding this issue, but instead left it open. In short, it was a weak decision by a weak jurist on a weakly lead court, it left open the need for this kind of continual contest, rather than doing away with bad laws OR defining, ultimately as Redding points out, that the states do in fact have some authorities restricted to them. Of course, if such a ruling were made, it would mean Chicago’s decisions were IT’S OWN TO MAKE and not unconstitutional despite the prattle of the pro-gun extreme for decades… so either, the federal power is supreme, and the state’s rights argument is poppycock and the 2nd amendment is incorporated, or it isn’t, and states can do what they want as it relates to the 2nd amendment (Kruikshanks and as I recall Presser notwithstanding (which prohibited states from totally disarming their citizens and thereby denying the federal authorities a reserve army)).

    The point is, Mitch, Scalia had a chance to make things more clear – but in what is typical for the right, rather than deciding, he punted. You all seem plenty happy with ‘activism’ if it suits your purpose, and Kruikshanks was no less ‘activist’ in it’s application than Roe v. Wade – it defined a right in more depth, with more clarity, than existed in the expressed idea and written words of the Constitution. While I realize I’m throwing this in your face, it WAS something I said to you months back. Scalia (and the right) have a dillema, either there are state’s rights, and the 2nd amendment gets decided locally, or there aren’t.

    So, as Foot’s final paragraph noted (correctly) – clearly Scalia has left the door open – but my reaction is, why do that? You waste time, you waste the lower court’s money, you perpetuate an issue that didn’t need to be perpetuated. If you want to incorporate the 2nd amendment, have some balls and do it. If you don’t, then say so.

  20. LearnedFoot Avatar

    “Then of course, Scalia pointedly stated that Heller didn’t incorporate the 2nd – which I reacted to as “Scalias got no balls”, he refrained from finally deciding this issue, but instead left it open.”

    Well, no. He couldn’t decide the issue, because the case was one of purely federal law. Not to mention that the parties did not raise the issue on appeal. A court that has even a modicum of self control isn’t going to raise the issue sui sponte.

    This is, BTW why you must necessarily agree with me, instead of the reverse, because I am the guy who knows what he’s talking about.

  21. LearnedFoot Avatar

    Sua sponte. Not Sui sponte.

  22. K-Rod Avatar
    K-Rod

    Foot takes peevee to task in quick fashion.

    Scalia wrote the majority opinion, correct me if I’m wrong, but peev talks as if the decision and opinion was all up to Scalia and only Scalia.

    But not so cut and dried as Foot might make it seem:

    “Therefore, we are taking our case to the highest court in the land,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The Seventh Circuit claimed it was bound by precedent from previous decisions. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don’t prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    Let’s all hope the SCOTUS upholds the 2nd Amendment to apply to states and municipalities and put this issue to bed. Anyone disagree?

  23. Scott Hughes Avatar
    Scott Hughes

    “Well, no. He couldn’t decide the issue, because the case was one of purely federal law. Not to mention that the parties did not raise the issue on appeal. A court that has even a modicum of self control isn’t going to raise the issue sui sponte.”

    I believe LF has this nailed. The Heller case was the one the gun rights community wanted to have in front of the SC first. That done they now intend to pursue other issues not addressed specifically by Heller. With the two Fed districts at odds it should compel the SC to hear the case. I think this was part of the stategy all along.

  24. Bike Bubba Avatar
    Bike Bubba

    I still disagree; the entire rest of the case states clearly, and repeatedly, that RKBA is a right of the citizen–if it is indeed, how can it be eliminated by the state?

    The footnote you cite is the one I found, and….I shudder to think that judges are making law based on a footnote. At least one court is following other reasoning–and as much as I hate to agree with the 9th, they got this one right, and the 7th is dead wrong.

    Again; I follow your logic, but I think it’s overwhelmingly overridden by the rest of the actual text of the opinion. If states aren’t obliged to honor it, it ain’t a right in any meaningful sense–and for that matter could theoretically be overwritten as the feds link highway funds to gun banning.

  25. LearnedFoot Avatar

    OK. One last time and I’m leaving:

    HE WAS NOT MAKING LAW IN A FOOTNOTE. HE WAS EXPLICITLY NOT -NOT! – MAKING LAW IN A FOOTNOTE. YOU CAN TELL HE IS NOT MAKING LAW IN A FOOTNOTE BECAUSE HE SAYS – RIGHT THERE IN THE FOOTNOTE that it was “a question not presented by this case”.

  26. penigma Avatar

    And yet, Foot, it was I, NOT YOU, who was advising Berg about incorporation 18 months back. So, I’m sorry, but you were agreeing with me, and OTHER people who knew the facts and had the balls to let Mitch know and PREDICT ACCURATELY the outcome of Heller.

    Also, Mr. No Balls, are you suggesting that federal case NEVER have bearing upon states? While I certainly grasped (and thanks for the meaningless insult) that this was a DC case, but I suspect, and will find out on my own, as I don’t doubt you’d lie like a rug for a nickel, that Scalia (and the majority) could have, in their opinion have pontificated upon what the ‘right to bear arms’ meant. I say this because MANY LAWYERS said when Heller came out that the decision was dwarfed. I suspect you know it, but then again, I also suspect you’d never admit it. You’re ‘right’ (kinda) that Scalia couldn’t comment upon what the case meant to the states (exactly), he certainly could have said what the right meant and let the chips fall from there. I think he didn’t for purely politcal calculus, by leaving the question open, he keeps the myopic and ignorant frothing at the mouth about the 2nd amendment. He doesn’t have any balls, but that’s not something unique to righties, in fact, it’s a pandemic. Bush invaded a toothless Iraq to be a ‘war president’ and avoided dealing with Saudi Arabia and Scalia didn’t comment here (in the majority opinion he authored (whoever thought I was speaking solely about Scalia- you’re really dumb – Scalia wrote the opinion – get a clue) – anyway, he didn’t comment on the right, he could have. The fact this was about DC was no limit on commenting on that right. He didn’t and therefore invited MORE cases – at the time Mitch was happy with that prospect – NOW you’re saying it’s because he couldn’t comment. I won’t say BS now, but I may shortly.

  27. penigma Avatar

    To be honest though, Foot, I don’t much care about your dissembling here.

    You dodged the topic, specifically, that state’s rights and incorporation sit at odds.

    If you believe in state’s rights (and let’s be clear, Scalia talked about the fact that Heller didn’t mean that, even if the 2nd were incorporated, normal laws for public safety would be obviated) – then you believe the states have supremacy to decide these facts, and if the 2nd ISN’T incorporated, then the 2nd is effectively MOOT.

    If, on the other hand, you think this right, like the 1st Amendment, the 14th, the 6th, and the 5th through it – is intended to be inalieanable regadless of state of residence, then Scalia’s comments about it NOT obviating normal laws are seriously in question especially if you (like Thomas) don’t accept Stare Decisis – because whatever Scalia’s words are, ultimately what is ‘normal laws for public safety’ constitute an abridgement of the right to bear arms, and certainly are open to interpretation. Funny, that’s exactly what Kruikshanks and for that matter US v. Miller actually tried to speak to, what IS the limit of what the right means – (and you know, since that was a FEDERAL CASE, funny how they commented on the right – so Foot, frankly, I think your comments are refuted by US v. Miller – that was a federal law case yet they spoke about what the meaning of the right was in a way that implied ideas and ideals upon the States).

    The point being, you righties are arguing two sides of the same issue. Either you accept the Federal supremacy of an amendment (which Redding clearly doesn’t like despite this issue having been settled by the Civil War) – and therefore accept that state’s rights is a dead issue, or you don’t, but then don’t come bo-hooing about how the 2nd amendment usurps State law.

    Try to stay focused.

  28. joelr Avatar

    Foot is, of course, right. I think Scalia hinted, pretty broadly, how the present SCOTUS is likely to rule on the incorporation issue, but the Opinion of the Court (I love writing that) in Heller very much didn’t decide the issue.

    Sigh. Personally, I wouldn’t have minded a little judicial activism, in practice, on this one — but the principle of the Court not deciding issues not presented is a sound one, and the Court was right not to decide that issue at that time; it’s only right to wait until it’s presented, and arguments are made on both sides.

    The one big mistake in the decision was that paragraph that Peevish is referring to.

    Some very smart folks like my friend Scott Greenfield picked up on that problem right away.

  29. LearnedFoot Avatar

    “I don’t much care about your dissembling here.”

    http://agileproductdesign.com/blog/images/inigo.jpg

    Piss off you little midget. You’re out of your league.

  30. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    Peev,

    Lest it missed you somewhere along the line, Foot is an actual lawyer and member of the Minnesota Bar.

  31. K-Rod Avatar
    K-Rod

    Mitch,

    Lest it missed you somewhere along the line, Peev is a foaming at the mouth far left wing nut yellow dog democrat that is filled with anger, hate, and pain, anger, hate, pain, anger, hate, pain…

    When he is not pushing the Liberal Fascist issues he is frothing at the mouth about Boooosh or Scalllliaaa.

    He has a serious case of BDS.

    Foot took Peev to task, big time.

    LearnedFoot, being a Burbot is nothing to brag about.

    I am not a Burbot and I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn last night…

    So, the 7th could have followed the 9th but that would not then allow the SCOTUS to revisit the issue.
    Is this a ‘yes we know the answer but we want to hear it from SCOTUS again’ moment?

    It looks like the strategery might work, a one – two punch from the SCOTUS for a knock out gun to control laws that infringe upon our 2nd Amendment right to have and bear arms.

  32. […] the rights of the law-abiding in the interest of  “safety” isnt’ a canard, the example of Chicago is probably lost on […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.