Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

[Overload]

Another example: Currently in California it's easy (and legal) to sell (or buy) marijuana.  However, it's still Federally illegal.  The feds can still raid/arrest these marijuana shops.

The Constitution says that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is the purview of the states.  In the last 100 years, there has been an encroachment of the federal government via the Commerce Clause, allowing federal regulation of interstate commerce.  Incorporation, mentioned above, is making items the Constitution law in all the states.  This was done mainly after the 14th amendment, which banned slavery.  It wouldn't be too useful if southern states could just pass laws making it legal.  Of course, inequality continued for nearly 100 years anyways.

[TAB]

drugs are not illegal,  there is a tax stamp you must buy in order to have them.  you just can't buy the tax stamp.

The federal govermetn does have the power to levee taxs.

Yes, its gone to court several times, every  time its been upheld. 

[tombogan03884]

drugs are not illegal,  there is a tax stamp you must buy in order to have them.  you just can't buy the tax stamp.

The federal govermetn does have the power to levee taxs.

Yes, its gone to court several times, every  time its been upheld. 

Some states, I think Arizona is one, even printed up the stamps at one time. As TAB says though, they never issued them.

[Sgt Z Squad]

In this case the 7th Circus court of appeals (Federal) has ruled that there is no self defense right.  It will now go to the Supreme Court.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Bowers v. DeVito, 1982) did not mince words when it ruled, “There is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

Seems to me the 7th is conflicted with these two observations. They can't have it both ways. So much for intellectual integrity.

[tombogan03884]

"n this case the 7th Circus court of appeals (Federal) has ruled that there is no self defense right.  It will now go to the Supreme Court."

"The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Bowers v. DeVito, 1982) did not mince words when it ruled, “There is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”"

I lost track of the thread and did not look at Haz's post again to see the context of these quotes, I'll also note that I don't recall where the 7th Circuit is, However that doesn't effect the point of my post which is this, There is no conflict here, while the first decision sucks it has nothing to do with the second.
The first decision specifically addresses (Incorrectly, even the UN recognizes the right to defense if you are not a white or male) The right to defend YOURSELF. while the second decision is in line with one handed down in Washington DC back in the 70's and used in our victory in the Heller case, that NO ONE ELSE has a Constitutional or legal obligation to defend you.
I would bet that the full context of the Bowers/Devito case was a LE Agency being sued on behalf of some one injured or killed by a criminal. The case in DC was ladies who were attacked and repeatedly raped and beaten by home invaders, They called 911 repeatedly police drove by but never came to the door. That case went to SCOTUS and it was ruled that they police have a specific duty to catch criminals, not to catch them in the act or to protect any individual.. Basically your on your own.

the first case says that taking that into account you can't do anything about it, to which I say BULLSH!T.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

Then, who would tell the truth, federal government or the Commerce Clause?




_________________
California Orange County Lawyer

Could you elaborate a bit? I don't understand what you're asking.
FQ13