Quantcast
U.S. & World

Federal judge: Ban on gun sales unconstitutional

Comments

Return To Article
  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:05 a.m.

    Go, judge!

    Now, it's time to lift the ban on assault weapons over there. "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."

  • DEW Sandy, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    B. Obama and Joe Biden going to go nuts and fuming - "how can it be?" Now I can no longer worry about getting weapon for my protection. Thank you!

  • Weber State Graduate Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    Of course the Chicago ordinances are unconstitutional. Trying to "reinterpret" the Constitution to say it doesn’t apply anymore is nonsense and sets a dangerous precedence for a society founded upon the rule law. Gun control advocates who want reasonable gun laws should seek to change the Constitution, not obfuscate it with clearly unconstitutional ordinances.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    Where's all the outrage about "activist judges" overriding the will of the people?

  • Obama10 SYRACUSE, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    Strictest gun laws with the highest murder rate in the country. Any correlation??

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    Maybe the judges like to toss laws back and forth just so.they have a job. We the people should judge.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    I"ll believe that a shortage of guns has ADDED to gun violence in Chicago, as implied by O 10, when the number of guns rises and violence DECLINES. When should we expect that to happen?

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    Hope for America! Maybe the crime rate will drop off when people can properly defend themselves now. Any cretans trying a home invasion deserve some of their own medicine.

  • first2third Elmo, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    Change, "let them eat cake" to "let them have nukes" and lets get on with the all out anarchy!

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:45 p.m.

    @1.96 Standard Deviations

    How is selling guns to private citizens commensurate with the constitutional mandate to maintain a well-regulated militia? Is every gun-toting private citizen part of the well-regulated militia? Where are your barracks? When do you train? Do you get uniforms?

    Seems like our well-regulated militia (aka the armed forces) has access to the guns they need, as required by the constitution. Interestingly, that same constitution makes no reference to people who are NOT part of the well-regulated militia owning guns. So where do you get the idea that private citizens should be able to own guns? News flash: It's not in the constitution.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    Ok then. Here is the precident for staying a decision. Shelby should have done the same thing this his homosexual marriage decision. This federal judge in Chicago at least knows how the law should work and he is giving time for the opponents of his decision to appeal. As it should be. Shelby could and should learn from this, but he won't.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    OHBU, at least this "activist judge" as you call it followed the Constitution. See my previous post for the point.

  • peacemaker Provo, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    Interesting that Chicago has some of the toughest anti gin laws in the U.S. and still has the highest homicide rate. Can we conclude that tough gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    also of note is the judge did not over rule a set of rules voted on by the people. These restrictions were placed by the governmental administration.

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    Brave Sir Robin:

    What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is hard to understand? That is about as plain of language as you can get. The founders of our country were not trying to make this complicated. The right belongs to the people. The militia (which is made up of people) is regulated, yes, but the right to bear arms is for you and me.

    P.S. The 2nd amendment mentions nothing of the need for a barracks, training, or the need for uniforms. The right to bear arms is independent.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    @Obama10
    "Strictest gun laws with the highest murder rate in the country."
    @peacemaker
    "Interesting that Chicago has some of the toughest anti gin laws in the U.S. and still has the highest homicide rate. Can we conclude that tough gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals?"

    Chicago does not have the highest murder rate in the country and their rates dropped significantly this past year.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:01 p.m.

    Flashback,

    There is nothing in the Constitution that states a judge shall stay their opinion pending appeal. People who are convicted of crimes and intend to appeal aren't allowed to roam free. The decision is made on a case-by-case basis.

    jsf: whether elected officials or direct vote are used, both are done according to the "will of the people." That's how a democratic republic works--some decisions are done directly, others through popularly elected officials. Both are considered the will of the people, especially in a place like Chicago (or Utah) where those same officials can expect broad support come the next election.

  • Weber State Graduate Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    "Is every gun-toting private citizen part of the well-regulated militia?"

    No, but the Constitution allows the opportunity for a private citizen to be part of a well-regulated militia, but recognizes that a citizen can’t without the ability to own, possess, or carry a firearm in the first place.

    The Supreme Court addressed and answered this Constitutional question for you. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision expressly holding that this particular clause protects the individual right to possess and carry firearms.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    Brave Sir Robin

    The only problem with your reasoning is that the U.S. constitution allowed for the formation of armies. The right to keep and bare arms is in the Bill of Rights, or the first 10 amendments to the constitution. Those were all for giving people power over government, not for giving government power over the people, which much of the constition does in its main articles.

    atl134

    Everywhere I look it says Chicago is the highest murder rate. So what's your source?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    Obama10 said: "Strictest gun laws with the highest murder rate in the country. Any correlation??"

    Casual at best, which is all that is needed for gun nuts to justify their obsession

    It is important to understand that Chicago is not an island. Although Chicago has historically had strict gun laws, laws in the surrounding parts of Illinois were much laxer — enabling middlemen to supply the criminals in Chicago with guns they purchased elsewhere. Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of which are known for their strict gun laws.

    Kinda like UT handing out CCP to anyone who's check clears in the USA

    Sorry your spin doesn't make it so.

  • Weber State Graduate Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    "Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois...fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state"

    Precisely why many local and state gun control laws simply don't work--they certainly don't reduce gun violence and claiming they do is not supported by the facts and is nothing more than political grandstanding at its best.

    The only constitutionally legitimate method to expropriate an armed citizenry in America is to amend the Constitution and remove the right to keep and bear arms. Anti-gun advocates know that amending the Constitution is a difficult task--that's why they choose a back-door approach through local anti-gun ordinances which the Supreme Court has said violates the constitutional rule of law.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:20 p.m.

    Happy Valley Heretic

    So by your reasoning, the only way for any state or city to get control of gun violence is for the entire United States of America to ban guns althgether.

    Well good luck with that!

    Also, it could be argued that if gun sales were banned in the U.S. altogether, you would only be opening a very lucrative illegal arms market to fill the gap. Therefore, the border security, which would also stop illegals from coming into the country, would really have to work. Would that be good with you?

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 7:52 p.m.

    @ Brave Sir Robin

    "So where do you get the idea that private citizens should be able to own guns?"
    The government could easily take away the rest of our rights if the Second Amendment wasn't in place and the citizens didn't own guns.